Jump to content

User talk:JBW/Archive 84

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 80←Archive 82Archive 83Archive 84

TPA revoke

Hi, could you revoke the TPA for the Can the tank end account? Thank you. — AP 499D25 (talk) 09:25, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

I was doing that while you posted this message. JBW (talk) 09:27, 22 February 2024 (UTC) 🙂
Hehe — AP 499D25 (talk) 09:36, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Frank Ryan (Irish republican)

Hi in order to prevent an edit war I hope you can take a look at the above page. 2A00:23C7:CD84:7301:5066:7018:3E2D:4B77 has inserted the Nazi flag multiple times and now includes Nazi Germany on the page under Allegiance (never includes a Edit Summary). I've asked several times to discuss this on the Talk page with no response. The page points out several times that Ryans allegiance was only to Ireland. I see this person has been blocked from several pages. Since no communication is possible with 2A00:23C7:CD84:7301:5066:7018:3E2D:4B77 and these incorrect assertions occur daily, I hope this user can be blocked from Frank Ryan (Irish republican). Thanks, Palisades1 (talk) 15:47, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Humphrey Goldenbollocks

Hi! I see you ultimately deleted the page I created and I hoped to discuss that deletion further here. I showed that the page was not a hoax and resubmitted it and was then told that it was not notable enough. Following the notability guidelines of "A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." I have three academic references to the figure which I will add here since there is no longer a talk page. These are in addition to the three academic sources I had listed on the talk page.

Matýsková, Bc Jitka. "Origin of English and Czech Surnames: Similarities and Differences."

Kay, Helen. The 1066 Norman Bruisers: How European Thugs Became English Gentry. Pen and Sword History, 2020.

Vincent, Nicholas. A Brief History of Britain 1066-1485. Hachette UK, 2011.

All three use Humphrey to discuss the intricacies and complexities of medieval naming conventions, particularly in Anglo-Norman England where so many cultures intermingled.

I do not intend to simply complain, I bring this all up because I believe this shows that the page meets the notability criteria and should be allowed to exist.Thanks for reading this far and I look forward to your response.Xismyhero (talk) 01:18, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Actually, it was Draft:Humphrey Goldenbollocks, and it was not deleted for lack of notability but per WP:G3 (vandalism). Please WP:SIGN your posts to Talk pages.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:28, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for correcting me on that! I had, I thought, already resolved the vandalism/hoax issue the first time around when I contested it's Speedy Deletion. The initial moderator who marked it for SD said they thought it was an attempt at humor, which it wasn't. As I've cited here and on the talk page, he was a real figure; a lord recognized in the Domesday book and discussed elsewhere. Xismyhero (talk) 01:17, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
Would the article be more acceptable if it's titled in the original Latin? As you can see on the folio here, the name is recorded as "Hunfridus aurei testiculi". Xismyhero (talk) 01:52, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
@Xismyhero: (and also Bbb23 if you are interested) one of the reasons that I was confident that it was vandalism was that "Goldenbollocks" is clearly not 11th century English. If it is a modern translation of the name that is a different matter. A different form of the name as an article title might be better, but I don't personally think it makes much difference, because I agree with the reviewer who declined the draft submission on the grounds that the subject doesn't seem to satisfy Wikipedia's notability criteria. However, I have restored the draft and removed the speedy deletion tag, and I will leave it there. JBW (talk) 09:06, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for bringing the draft back! It's certainly a unique name, but using modern translations is the norm when discussing Anglo-Saxon and Norman England. For instance, we don't refer to Harold Godwinson by the Old English Hereweald (Harold (given name)). Xismyhero (talk) 18:41, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Why did you remove content from battle of dewair 1582


Your recent edit on battle of dewair 1582 was not fair, removing content without any reason BasedMaratha (talk) 11:25, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Do you know User:R2dra? Being a brand new user, two of your edits are in favour of his POV. Imperial[AFCND] 11:32, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
does that matter? BasedMaratha (talk) 11:49, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
@BasedMaratha: Can you clarify what further explanation you need, beyond what I gave in edit summaries? If there's something else you need explained then I will be happy to try to help, but at present I can't think of anything else that might be helpful, beyond what I've already said. JBW (talk) 17:22, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
Please revert your edit, redirecting a brief and clear article into a short and confusing paragraph isn't fair. You may even review the sources too BasedMaratha (talk) 09:08, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
@BasedMaratha: What you are asking me to do is to ignore consensus reached at a deletion discussion, and deliberately impose a view contrary to that consensus. That is totally unacceptable. Wikipedia works by editors accepting consensus, not by anyone who disagrees with the consensus just ignoring it and trying to impose their own view. JBW (talk) 10:56, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
Kindly ignore it. They won't understand nor try to understand about the criterias. This often happens to the India-Pakistan related contentious topic areas, especially for MILHIST related topics. If we point out any disruptive editing they made, they will just lengthen the our talk page with some "nonsense and useless comments". And you are far and far more experienced than me, so I think there is no need to take an advice from me, but you know already about these. Thanks! Imperial[AFCND] 11:10, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
Saying You may even review the sources too really isn't a good idea since I did just that and posted my results here. In particular, I specifically criticised the references in the version you restored. For example "THE LION OF HIND: Power, Passion, Patriotism. One Man's Guts Sends Shivers Down the Mughal Spine!" is on Clever Fox Publishing, which is self-published apparently. Even if you want to argue it isn't self-published, I suggest reading its entry on Kobo (much as I hate linking to a commercial site, it is necessary) where it appears in the category Kids, Teen, General Fiction. Yes, that's right, a fictional book for children! And despite knowing this R2dra restored the version using it as a reference. I further noted that footnotes #1-6 in that version are to the book "Parakram aur Parampara: Rajputana Chronicles", which is self-published on Notion Press. How's that for a review? Many thanks to JBW for protecting the page, as I noted in the commnent I linked to there have been numerous attempts in article and draft space to recreate all the article, all failing miserably since the source material does not appear to exist. FDW777 (talk) 13:07, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Dhamrai Government College

Hello JBW, I tagged Dhamrai Government College for deletion under G11, but Mach61 removed the tag, stating it's not promotional. However, I still think it's promotional and should be deleted under G11. I just want to hear an admin's opinion on this. What do you think? – DreamRimmer (talk) 17:30, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

@DreamRimmer:
  • The short version is that I think that deletion of the article would be fully justifiable, but not under G11. For the longer version, read on.
  • To start with, I think that if a page which says "Various students of this college are in various big institutes of the country and have made the country bright. Many students are shining the name of this college" isn't promotional then I wonder what would be. However, that can easily be removed, so I don't think that speedy deletion as promotional would be justifiable.
  • I also think that including "Also, there is a student of the said school who has been very interested in technology since childhood" in an article is ridiculous.
  • Once all of that has been removed, we will be left with a trivial article which doesn't even begin to demonstrate notability.
  • Three of the four references are dead links. The other one does not mention the fact for which it is supposed to be a reference; in fact the only thing in the article which is supported by any cited source is that the college exists. JBW (talk) 17:58, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
Thank you for your thoughtful response. I was also considering removing the promotional material from the article. However, I realized that after doing so, we would only have a small portion of the article left. I also thought about nominating it for AfD, but I believe it can be kept as a redirect per ATD/SCHOOLOUTCOME. That’s why I wanted to discuss it with you. – DreamRimmer (talk) 18:32, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
@DreamRimmer: Articles much better than this one get deleted all the time at AfD, but for some reason there's a widespread tendency to set a lower notability threshold for educational institutions than for other organisations. My bet would be that, even so, this one would more likely than not fail to survive an AfD, whether that would mean deletion or redirecting, though of course I can't be sure. Where would you consider redirecting it to? JBW (talk) 21:40, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
Redirecting to its parent institution, National University, Bangladesh would make sense. – DreamRimmer (talk) 00:45, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
@DreamRimmer: Yes, that seems a good idea. JBW (talk) 10:19, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
Done. Thank you for your valuable time and feedback. – DreamRimmer (talk) 11:01, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Good luck

Re: [1]. Good luck and I hope all turns out well. Sam Kuru (talk) 16:04, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

HOM Furniture

I am unclear on why this page was deleted, or how it constituted promotional material. I am new enough to Wikipedia writing that I want to get it right. I looked up how to un-delete a page, and Wiki's own article said to reach out to the admin who deleted it. Please let me know next steps. I am not just trying to promote HOM, but point out the notability of this company. It is large, with lots of employees throughout the Midwest, and changed how discount furniture is found and sold in this region. HOM also matters to its community thanks to Wayne Johansen's philanthropy. Again, please let me know what to do so this wiki page can go live. If it needs to be shorter, OK. I added research that is not just from HOM. I hope this can be resolved. Quadaya (talk) 17:43, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

@Quadaya: It is very difficult to tell you what was promotional about the pages you created, because it was more a matter of the overall tone and feel than specific details which I could point out. Do you work in marketing, advertising, PR, or a related field? If you do, I'm afraid my experience over the years has been that people who work in those areas get so used to writing and reading promotional material all day, year after year, that they can get desensitised to it, and may find it extremely difficult to see why something looks promotional to other people. Obviously I don't know whether that applies in your case.
If you like I can restore your draft to give you a chance to work on it, and then submit it for an independent reviewer to assess whether it's suitable to become an article. Let me know if you still want me to do that, but be warned that I think doing so may well be an unproductive use of your time, because it seems to me that the business does not satisfy Wikipedia's notability guidelines. I have both looked at the references which you provided, and searched for further information myself, and nowhere did I see anything like the kind of substantial coverage in independent reliable sources which are needed. A promotional tone in an article can be edited out, but no amount of editing an article can change the notability of the subject of that article.
One other thing. Do you have a connection to the business you have written about, such as being an employee of it, a contractor working for it, a friend of the owners, or any other kind of personal connection? If you do then you need to read the guideline on conflict before you do any more editing on the subject. JBW (talk) 19:39, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
I work with HOM, so if this is an issue I will ask someone not working with HOM to create a draft and make sure it is notable, given how many other furniture stores I see that are considered notable because of their size and what they mwan to the community. Thanks for the info. 155.190.3.6 (talk) 16:14, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
@Quadaya: Someone creating an article on behalf of the business is just as much subject to the conflict of interest guideline and other related requirements whether they are an employee of the business, an outside contractor, a friend doing it as a favour, or anyone else, so getting someone else to do it is irrelevant. Also, if you read the notability guidelines you will see that whether a business is regarded as notable has nothing to do with "their size and what they mean to the community". I am not expressing a personal opinion as to whether that should be so or not, I'm just letting you know that it is. JBW (talk) 19:14, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – March 2024

News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2024).

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • The mobile site history pages now use the same HTML as the desktop history pages. (T353388)

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:21, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Wishing well and a heads-up

Hi, JB, hope you're feeling better.

I noticed that you blocked 24.121.225.34 back in 2019 and thought you'd like to know that they've been ramping up the vandalism again.   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 21:17, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

@Skywatcher68:
  1. Thanks. In most ways I'm getting better, but there are downs as well as ups.
  2. I've blocked the IP address for 3 years. I feel a longer block might be justifiable. JBW (talk) 21:41, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

It's like a reverse "DESTROY" vandal

Hey, JB, check this out when you get a chance; they want something CONTINUED rather than DESTROYED. Philippines so I doubt it's "DESTROY"   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 00:09, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Maybe it's this LTA?   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 00:12, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
@Skywatcher68: As you may have seen, I blocked the IP address some hours after you posted this message, and I meant to make an answer here in answer to your comment about the LTA, but I see I didn't. Maybe I was called away to do something else, I don't know. Anyway, a little late, my answer is that it looks as though it could be the same person, but I don't really see enough evidence. Your comparing it to a reverse DESTROY vandal is just about right. JBW (talk) 21:17, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

IP-hopping Russian edit warrior

Hi, JB, just giving you a heads-up about these IPs, which are pretty clearly the same editor. 178.206.249.125, 178.205.126.152, and 188.225.50.114   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 13:19, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

@Skywatcher68: I've blocked those three Ip addresses for a month, but I expect more will turn up. Protecting the pages they have edited would probably be useful, but I'm not doing it now because I'm on my phone, and all the necessary jumping about to deal with all the pages would be tedious. I may or may not be on a computer in a few hours; if I am I may come back to it. Reverting recent edits may he a good idea too. JBW (talk) 14:18, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

RE: National Logistics Corporation

Hello, JBW. Hope you're in good health now. Could you please take a look at the contributions of Usamanaeem31 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) again? It seems to be a clear case of WP:COI and despite your warning they haven't disclose their COI. I'm also concerned that this is just another account of Maars101 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) (blocked by you). In any case Usamanaeem31 is a WP:SPA and clearly they are not here to build an encyclopedia rather whitewash the article. 194.60.199.178 (talk) 21:02, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Clearly SEO officers are not allowed to edit Wikipedia articles directly when they have WP:COI. They are still doing despite warnings. A block here is necessary. 194.60.199.178 (talk) 21:07, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
Thank you for calling my attention to this. I've blocked the account. JBW (talk) 21:38, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
Thank you Sir! 194.60.199.178 (talk) 21:47, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Block of 2A00:23C8:9FB7:5C00:0:0:0:0/64

Ta muchly!. Let's hope the block does some good (though my breath is unheld). Narky Blert (talk) 21:32, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

@Narky Blert: I have wondered about protecting the articles most affected, but I am editing on my phone, and all the necessary jumping about from page to page would just be too tedious. In any case, it would give at best a brief respite, because the potential collateral damage from protecting so many pages would, I think, make it unacceptable to do it for a long period. JBW (talk) 21:39, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
I agree. Narky Blert (talk) 21:57, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

You've got mail

Hello, JBW. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.— Sigma440 (talk) 11:52, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

aubearing.com

Hi! I've just spent a couple of hours investigating a spam farm which turns out to be related to the one you found spamming aubearing.com. I blocked quite a few more accounts spamming the same domain and many others spamming other links. I found your spam blacklist report and checked all the accounts there that I hadn't already seen, which led to a few more. It's worth poking a checkuser for any throwaway account spamming external links but doubly so if you find more than one account spamming the same link. In my limited experience so far as a CU, there's never just one! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:17, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

@HJ Mitchell: Yes, that's something I don't tend to think of, but obviously now you've pointed it out, it makes sense. I'll try to remember it for the future. JBW (talk) 20:32, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
You'd think professional SEO outfits would be slicker but they're usually not at all sophisticated. Which I guess is a good thing from our perspective! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:11, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

2a02:c7c::/32's block at AN

Hi JBW, I found 2a02:c7c::/32's block settings interesting enough to start a discussion about it; it's at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard § 2a02:c7c::/32 and your input would be welcome. I'm notifying everyone whose name appears in the block log as this is practically a review of a series of admin actions yours was a part of. I hope that, due to the amount of administrators who built the block to the current state, discussing this in a central location directly rather than asking everyone for input on their own talk page is okay. And perhaps there was a past discussion and this is completely unnecessary silliness of me; I apologize in advance if that's the case. Best regards, ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:12, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

You've got mail

Hello, JBW. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template. Dc883 (talk) 10:50, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

User talk:Splashgxd

Wow, that was quite the mess they created. Think I got them all. Taking Out The Trash (talk) 17:46, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

@Taking Out The Trash: Yes. One good thing is that they went so far overboard with their nonsense that a block was obvious, without having to wonder whether to give another friendly AGF warnings or anything of the sort. JBW (talk) 17:50, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

UTRS appeal #86746

Wow. Well said. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:24, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Somebody doth protest too much, methinks

Hey, JB, check out this user talk page when you get a chance. So polite!   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 19:20, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

@Skywatcher68: Yes. By the time I got there, the IP address was already blocked, otherwise I would have done it. I thought of posting a message about civility, but decided that would be just feeding the troll, so I have left it, but watchlisted the talk page, with a view to stepping in if it all starts up again. JBW (talk) 19:45, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
Anyone trying to get a rise out of me has their work cut out for them. I'm in customer service.   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 21:31, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – April 2024

News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2024).

Administrator changes

removed

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • The Toolforge Grid Engine services have been shut down after the final migration process from Grid Engine to Kubernetes. (T313405)

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

  • Editors are invited to sign up for The Core Contest, an initiative running from April 15 to May 31, which aims to improve vital and other core articles on Wikipedia.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:47, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Another 'non-user' chancer

Please have a look at this one, http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/User:Jadirior/sandbox , that seems a personal vanity page from over a year ago, the user having not contributed at all. Found again through a spam image on Commons. Thanks. Acabashi (talk) 13:20, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

@Acabashi: I've deleted the page, and supported your deletion nomination on Commons. I also found that the editor had created another copy of the same page, which has already been deleted. I think it's close to certain that the person will never come back, but I'll watchlist the pages just in case. JBW (talk) 16:12, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
Many thanks. Acabashi (talk) 10:42, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

UTRS appeal #87015

Wanna unblock? -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:23, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

I figured that one was going to work out. You win some, you lose some, but that's a disappointment. JBW, Keychron makes some great mechanical keyboards if that's your sort of thing. --Yamla (talk) 22:38, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
I feel so used. In processing this, a couple of pop culture ref's popped into my head. This is the best. "I am a little disappointed-- and if there is one thing I do not like, it is to be-- disappointed. --Jean-Baptiste Emmanuel Zorg. Not a mathematician, so I hope I get this right. P(u) = 1/∞, where u = future unblock of Crazybob2014. Best -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 00:49, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
@Deepfriedokra and Yamla: One of the things that strike me most forcefully about this is the sheer stupidity. If they hadn't jumped right into restoring their block-evading edits the moment they were unblocked, I probably wouldn't have noticed. I think that confirms what I already strongly suspected, which is that before long we would have had a CIR block, if there hadn't been any other reason for a block. JBW (talk) 18:22, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
Indeed. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:24, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

IMHO

arson is never the answer. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:00, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Well, yes you may be right, but it might sometimes be helpful in dealing with trolls. JBW (talk) 20:04, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
Trolls should not have flamethroers. or UTRS access. UTRS appeal #87165 -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:06, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
NO, but admins should have flamethrowers to deal with trolls. At least I was old that admins needed flamethrowers when I became an admin, so it must be true. See User talk:JBW/Archive 12#Congratulations JBW (talk) 20:11, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
@Deepfriedokra: It turns out that the link was even more appropriate than I realised. I remembered that I'd been given a flamethrower after my RfA, but what I'd forgotten was that the person who gave it to me (a now long gone editor called Peter) actually said that it could be used for killing trolls, just as I said above. JBW (talk) 20:49, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
@Deepfriedokra: Come to think of it, large goats are reputed to be effective against trolls. Whether as good as flamethrowers, I'm not sure. JBW (talk) 20:51, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
Definitely pro-goat -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 21:02, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

revdel request

Hey, JB, could you take out some trash? Edit & edit summary contain hate speech.   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 15:55, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Indian Hacker Group

Kinldy Review Draft:Team_Hacktivist_Vanguard . Techrd2000cork (talk) 16:09, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

IP sock returned

You had blocked this IP range and the sock who abused is now back. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Observer1989#18 April 2024. He is also ranting about my reverts[2] the same way he did with his last IP range. [3] Thanks Ratnahastin (talk) 11:21, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

I don't see any obvious reason for thinking this is the same person, and I do see one striking difference in their editing pattern. JBW (talk) 11:52, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
I would urge you to recheck. His writing style is the same i.e. failing to capitalize the letter after putting the dot and also not giving a space; "reliable.the author"[4], "available too.there are other".[5] He is hounding my edits on other articles too [6] just like he did earlier. [7] Ratnahastin (talk) 12:16, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
@Ratnahastin: OK, I've looked again, and the difference I thought I had seen was not actually consistent: both IP addresses sometimes do things one way and sometimes the other, which makes it far more likely that they are the same person. I will block the new IP address. There's also one edit that I've seen from another IP address in the same range, seemingly the same person. It's too large a range to consider a total block on the whole range, but I'll partially block the range from the pages those two IP addresses have edited. Unfortunately, it seems likely that they will come back on another page, another range, or both. Please feel welcome to contact me again if they do. JBW (talk) 12:54, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
Here too. He is back to his 2409 IP and restoring the edits of his sock IP.[8] Ratnahastin (talk) 12:42, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
I had not seen this message when I wrote my message above, but I'll have a look at it. JBW (talk) 12:54, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Mass article deletion

Hello, JBW,

I see you just did a mass article deletion of pages created by a sockpuppet but, for some reason, the tool you used left behind all of the Talk pages (see here). It's not a big problem as I run a Quarry query that displays all of the orphaned Talk pages from all namespaces (except for User talk pages) so I took care of them. But you might consider switching to an option like Twinkle's Batch Delete which will take care of deleting not only the Article page but also the Talk page and any redirects that exist, too. It's kind of a powerful tool though, as I found out the hard way, but it is another tool that is available.

I hope you are having a decent week (it is lovely here in NW U.S.) and thanks for all you do here on the project! Liz Read! Talk! 21:17, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, Liz. I thought I had things set to delete everything in all namespaces except File and User, but evidently it didn't do that. I have found in the past that the mass delete tool doesn't always do everything, for no obvious reason, so I'll take up your suggestion of Twinkle's Batch Delete, in the hope that it may work better.
I thought it was British people who were supposed to always comment on the weather. However, since you have asked, in the last few days it's become cool and showery, sometimes hail showers. (April, with his shoures soote, the droghte of March hath perced to the roote. Except that I didn't notice March being all that dry.) You don't choose to live on a valley side in the Western slopes of the Pennines if you can't stand cool wet weather. JBW (talk) 21:36, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
@Liz: It's just occurred to me. NW U.S.? so no longer NJ? JBW (talk) 21:39, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Help

Hi @JBW hope you are well , and I would like to request for undeletion of this Draft:FlexClip deleted under CSD G11 and think it is not promotion

. Please restore the page so that I can make edits to it Thank you Alimahmuttr (talk) 08:53, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

The suggestion that it was not promotion is absurd: it was absolutely promotion. Also, you need to comply with the guideline on conflict of interest and the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use relating to paid editing. JBW (talk) 09:22, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
Also, please read WP:ADMINSHOP, and don't continue to post the same request in numerous places. Your requests to have your spam restored have now been declined by three administrators; continuing in the same way will not only be futile, because no administrator is going to restore it, but it will also result in your being blocked from editing. JBW (talk) 09:32, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Block evasion?

Hi there. You recently blocked an editor for this spam at WT:List of paid editing companies. Another account is now there adding essentially the same material. Thought you would want to know. ☆ Bri (talk) 16:23, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

@Bri: Thanks I've blocked the account. JBW (talk) 22:11, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

83.137.6.237

Whoever is using this IP today has been daring admins to block them again.   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 19:48, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Deleted file

I see you deleted File:Paul huff pkwy.png as a copyright violation. Maybe I missed it, but I didn't see any discussion about this being a possible violation. What was it that made you think so? Bneu2013 (talk) 23:11, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

@Bneu2013: I didn't "think" so, I knew so. Fortunately 0x 2x tagged it as a copyright infringement, with a link to a photograph on Google maps, and when I checked I found that the photograph you uploaded is identical to the photograph at Google maps, in every detail, right down to the same car in the process of driving out of an entrance, in exactly the same spot. Why do you ask how I knew? You must have known that you had copied the photograph. Why did you claim, when you uploaded the photograph, that it was your own work? You must have known that it wasn't. JBW (talk) 08:38, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
just to add, on the left side of the deleted image, there was a visible (though easy to miss, it was transparent grey) Google copyright text 0x 2x (talk) 08:49, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
Thanks, 0x 2x. I knew that would be there somewhere, but I couldn't easily see it, and since the copyright infringement was blindingly obvious anyway, I didn't bother to search for it. Now you've told me where to look, though, I can see it. JBW (talk) 08:58, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
Since it's been so long since I uploaded it, I don't remember why I claimed it was my own work. I may have copied it from Flickr and accidentally used the wrong tag. Whatever happened, I made a mistake. Why didn't this come up during the GA review? 0x 2x, why did I not get a notification on my talk page when you tagged it so I could have possibly fixed the issue? Bneu2013 (talk) 18:31, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
@Bneu2013: I accept that it was a long time ago that you uploaded the image, so that you probably don't remember the circumstances, such as why you gave it as your own work. I also think, from what I have seen of your other editing, that it was a mistake, rather than dishonesty.
I took no part in the good article review, so I can't tell you why it didn't come up, but my guess is that nobody had any reason to suspect anything, and so nobody had any reason to check. I am not sure how you "could have possibly fixed the issue": if an image is not released under a free license then nothing you can do on Wikipedia can change that. The only way to change it is, in fact, to persuade Google to change its copyright terms, which I think is unlikely, to say the least. JBW (talk) 18:52, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
forgive me, but I do have a bit of a hard time believing it was a mistake as you claim, especially with other examples from this same time period being verifiably from Google Maps, tagged similarly with "Own work" (image for example, https://www.google.com/maps/@35.1800171,-84.8740418,2a,76.5y,27.57h,86.46t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sfKZKoF8pxTebLL0C3tCjkg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192) though I'm not sure how to display other examples from Commons here. nearly all images (save for the logo and bridge) uploaded by you on the article Cleveland/Bradley County Greenway are verifiably taken from Google Maps, with what looks like a sharpness and saturation filter (could be JPEG compression?) applied to the images. 0x 2x (talk) 20:01, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
Thank you, 0x 2x. The one you linked to was clearly no more the uploader's "own work" than the previous one, so I have deleted it. Obviously that must reduce one's confidence that the other one was a mistake. As you say, it has had some kind of filtering applied to it, including increase of saturation. I had looked fairly quickly through Bneu2013's file upload history, and missed that one, so I may have missed many more. I'll have another look.
The most remarkable thing I've seen connected to this is the following statement, made when a file on Commons was challenged as a copyright infringement: "I don't see the issue here. This is a photo I retrieved at a public library. How am I supposed to prove anything about it's publication? I know nothing about it's history, or whether it was ever published at all for that matter." That was a few years ago, and may not reflect Bneu2013's current view, but it certainly raises the possibility of copyright infringements because of disregard for copyright, rather than innocent error. JBW (talk) 21:16, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
I don't remember, but I think those images came from Flickr. If someone screenshotted them from Google Maps and then uploaded them to Flickr, then I guess I can't verify their copyright status. If I can't confirm this, I'll request their deletion. Also, I must ask, 0x 2x what brings a user with only five edits to this issue? Bneu2013 (talk) 22:11, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
I don't think it's relevant, but I'm just a lurking user with extensive knowledge on Google Maps (more specifically, Street View) and also knowledge of the fact that Google's handle on copyright is quite incompatible with Wikipedia's, that stumbled across this page with an image that very obviously came from a Google Street View panorama taken with a Generation 3 (R7) Google 360 camera.
anyways, since I now know how to embed Commons links, here are the panoramas from where the rest of the images that I know of came from, for more verification of their status.
commons::File:CBC Greenway near 17th Street.png : https://www.google.com/maps/@35.1710486,-84.8792896,2a,75y,18.26h,87.54t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s5f_TU4Bv2cf_0buKF-SeYw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
commons::File:CBC Greenway Tinsley.png : https://www.google.com/maps/@35.2017423,-84.8574356,2a,90y,136.1h,87.27t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sUEtXP1-s_nzbUA5gj-2bHg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
commons::File:Greenway Park Cleveland, TN.png : https://www.google.com/maps/@35.1906264,-84.866271,2a,75.9y,348.7h,90.7t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sA5pJcawoJhIk6F9DVD-Gtg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192 0x 2x (talk) 00:08, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
I requested speedy deletion of those, but according to another user, they are too old for that. Bneu2013 (talk) 00:48, 26 April 2024 (UTC)


Recent activity on my User talk

Given an off-wiki approach I have also had, I believe Alimahmuttr, Charlessmith9 and Editorahmad belong in Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of علي أبو عمر. This is Ali Al Suleiman, https://www.linkedin.com/in/ali-al-suleiman/. Charles Matthews (talk) 09:04, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Please tag this for speedy deletion

Hi there, can you please tag this Collen Mashawana page for speedy deletion I don't think it's notable. I also think it's not written from a neutral standpoint.Bobbyshabangu talk 16:18, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

@Bobbyshabangu: I don't understand. If you think the article should be tagged for speedy deletion then why do you ask me to do it, instead of doing it yourself? JBW (talk) 16:21, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
Because in the past you've tagged my articles for speedy deletion, so who else to better delete the article except you?. Also, because I think the person who initially wrote this article was paid to do so.Bobbyshabangu talk 18:07, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Imlil

A page that you have locked.

Location Consider updating the location to something more reasonable. At the moment the link suggests the town is a square metre in size 90.240.165.192 (talk) 08:30, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

You must mean Imlil, Marrakesh-Safi. If so, can you clarify what you want changed, and preferably what you want it changed to? I can't see anything in the article about the size of the place, and I don't know which link you are referring to. JBW (talk) 09:10, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – May 2024

News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2024).

Administrator changes

readded Nyttend
removed

Bureaucrat changes

removed Nihonjoe

CheckUser changes

readded Joe Roe

Oversight changes

removed GeneralNotability

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • Partial action blocks are now in effect on the English Wikipedia. This means that administrators have the ability to restrict users from certain actions, including uploading files, moving pages and files, creating new pages, and sending thanks. T280531

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:25, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

UTRS appeal #88074

Hey! Did you mean your comment of 05-02 21:15:03 for us or for the appellant? -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:42, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

I already recused cause I cannot be objective toward that user. Best. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:43, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
@Deep: I meant it for yous (as some of the people in a part of England where I once lived say, or y'all, as some of your compatriots say) but now that I think of it I can't see any reason why it shouldn't be addressed to the appellant too. JBW (talk) 13:51, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
Cool. Will you?. Better coming from someone besides me. (They need to hear it.) -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:03, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
@​: Well, having read your message, I decided to go over and do it, but when I got there I found someone had already done it. Sigh... JBW (talk) 20:19, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
OCD at work -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:21, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

National Logistics Corporation

Hello JBW. Hope you're well. That SEO manager (Usamanaeem31 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)) is back as Hashjam (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and is again adding promo to the article. Could you please create a SPI about this group (including Maars101 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)) so I can report them on the SPI in future? Thank you! 194.60.199.170 (talk) 21:08, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

It certainly looks as though Hashjam is likely to be working for the same organisation as the other two accounts, but the account's entire editing history to date has been restricted to the period from 23rd to 27th March, so there's no current activity to prevent. For the time being I have given warnings on conflict of interest and on possible use of multiple accounts. If the account resumes editing after that warning, or if yet another account appears, I will consider further action, including possibly blocking. Please let me know if you see any more from this account or another one which looks like the same person, and I'll look into it. I don't see much point in a Sockpuppet investigation at this stage, as I don't think it would be likely to get a CheckUser, and without one it would not have any more to go on than what I can see. JBW (talk) 21:56, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

IP-hopping genre warrior from Rhode Island

Hi, JB, how are you?

While patrolling Recent Changes, I came across Rhode Island IP making unsourced genre changes. Seems they've been doing this for quite a while across various IPs: 70.168.7.138, 70.168.206.141, 174.78.134.19, etc; they might be this LTA.   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 15:24, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Hi, Skywatcher68. I've blocked the latest IP address for a month, and the /17 range covering it for a few days, but that is more in hope than in expectation of achieving much, since past history suggests it will just come back on another IP address. Total range blocks wide enough to cover a significant proportion of the IP addresses used are out of the question. Possibly a whole load of partial blocks of various IP ranges from various articles might help, but I don't know how many articles are involved, and if there's very many then the amount of time and trouble it would take would be more than I would be willing to do. I am also reluctant to put a lot of time into checking editing histories and cataloguing all the articles affected, for several reasons, including the fact that all this stuff about exactly what genre a particular band belongs to is, in my opinion, too trivial and insignificant to be wort putting much effort into it. However, if you are willing to split the work by compiling a list of the pages affected, I will be willing to look at whether a set of partial range blocks seems to be a viable possibility. JBW (talk) 20:07, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
I could compile a list of articles going back a few months but I'll have to be sufficiently bored first. :-) Likely when I have a day off or on a weekend.   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 20:44, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Different version of defunct football club in Turkiye "Usakspor"

Hello, JBW, I Googled "Usakspor AS," which are a new version of their defunct predecessors, Usakspor (1967-2010). I believe Usakspor AS formed before their predecessor's final match because the season Usakspor folded from the TFF, Usakspor AS won the 2009-10 Usak Amateur League. Today, they will be relegated to the TFF Third League for next season after finishing last in the 2023-24 TFF 2. Lig (Red Group) with five points and a -94 goal difference. Is it possible for them to have an article?

Regards, RIballer19 RIballer19 (talk) 20:32, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

@RIballer19: That depends on whether the team satisfies Wikipedia's notability guidelines. A very quick look at a few Google searches didn't give me the impression that it does, but I know nothing about them, and didn't put a lot of time into searching for evidence. JBW (talk) 22:18, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
I see what you mean, JBW, given that Usakspor AS was only known to be in the top three TFF leagues for only a bit, I understand. RIballer19 (talk) 22:37, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Please expand this IP's block

Hi JBW, nice to meet you. I see you blocked 93.32.0.0/16 from a number of Ravidassia-related pages, but not from Shri Guru Ravidas Janam Asthan. After these edits [9] by the IP, I think this page should be added to the block if possible. Perception312 (talk) 13:16, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

@Perception312:  Done. Thanks for letting me know. Unfortunately, I fully expected that the person in question would turn to more articles, but there is far too much editing from other editors on the range to consider a total block. The best we can do is try to limit the damage by dealing with particular articles when they come up. Please feel very welcome to contact me again if you see more of the same. JBW (talk) 15:35, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your extra comment

I see WP:NOTHERE with the promotional user 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 11:41, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

@Timtrent: Yes. Having seen the whole editing history, including deleted editing, I think there's far more than enough for a block, but since until now the editor has not been given suitable warnings, I think it's better to warn and wait for now. JBW (talk) 11:46, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
Nothing is urgent. We can bide our time. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 13:27, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Pakdam Pakdai page protection possible?

Hi, JB. I'd like a second opinion for Pakdam Pakdai; I requested page protection eight days ago but it was rejected with the statement "warn the user appropriately". Which of these users are supposed to be warned?   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 18:10, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

@Skywatcher68: My apology for not responding to this at the time. I did what I annoyingly often do, which is leave it to deal with later, because I don't have time now, and then not come back to it. It's one of the symptoms of attention deficit syndrome, which has absolutely plagued me all my life. Anyway, as you probably know, it did eventually get protected, and FWIW I agree with you that it should have been done earlier. JBW (talk) 21:34, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
@Skywatcher68: ... and for a longer period. JBW (talk) 21:36, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

West Ferris Secondary School

Hi, JB; just wanted to let you know that recently registered editors keep restoring the promotional content which you removed. West Ferris Secondary School is protected for now; you might want to do another removal.   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 18:30, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

@Skywatcher68: I'm holding back from doing that, to reduce any risk of being seen as being INVOLVED if any further admin action becomes necessary. JBW (talk) 21:24, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
S'okay. I just initiated a SPI regarding the editor who started it all.   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 02:33, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Explicit computable function

Regarding your recent edit of Sine and cosine, I think the work explicit should stay. In the context of computability, explicit means the value being computed is by itself on the left-hand side of the equation. If it were on both sides, and inseparable, the equation would be implicit and require a different class of algorithm.—Anita5192 (talk) 20:25, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

@Anita5192: Of course you are right. I can't think what I was thinking of. I will revert my edit. Thanks for pulling me up on that mistake. JBW (talk) 20:30, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
Thank you!—Anita5192 (talk) 20:32, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

An apology for editing many unsourceful things

Look, I know you may not care and gonna block me. But I'm sorry for doing that, even for the last unsourceful edit in The Powerpuff Girls franchise. I didn't understand what I was doing, I never realized that. I know I was stupid to edit everything here. Please forgive me. I don't care if you're gonna block me if you're giving me another chance. I'm telling you this for no offenses, okay? I'm really sorry for this.. ArdaCoolestDude2009 (talk) 12:30, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Barnstar of Diligence
Good work Nameless (talk) 09:19, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Previous Edit

Very new to editing wikipedia, but I know for a fact Kobbie Mainoo's height is 6 ft tall, not 5'9. Can you please help me incorporate this source into the wikipedia edit? https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/5514522/2024/05/24/kobbie-mainoo-manchester-united-interview/. I was trying to cite it correctly but messed up Akthegreat789 (talk) 16:34, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

@Akthegreat789: My apologies. I searched for 183cm in the page you referenced, and didn't find it, but I now see it says "around 6ft (182cm)". In fact 6ft is closer to 183cm, the figure you gave. I have therefore restored your version, with the reference you gave. JBW (talk) 16:48, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

What am I missing?

Hello! I would like to follow-up about your recent comments on my talk page.[1] You expressed skepticism that I actually understand the reason for the block, and I am still unclear about what was lacking in my request. I understand that there were a variety of reasons for my block, some of which are detailed in a recent peer-reviewed article[2] (section "Editor removal as erasure"). Could you please let me know what you would like me to acknowledge before being unblocked? Is it that other editors perceived me as a SJW? That American nationalists opposed my proposed content? That I sometimes express my opposition to administrative actions? I am sincerely trying to better understand what you expect from me, and I would appreciate a response.  — Freoh 20:02, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

If I'm not mistaken, just a few days ago, you also called another editor being blocked for sockpuppetry as disruptive, again linking a paper written accusing Wikipedia of colonial erasure. [10] You have repeatedly said 331dot "misunderstood" your actions, but it appears to me that they understood just fine. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 02:38, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ User talk:Freoh § Return from exile?
  2. ^ Keeler, Kyle (2024-05-24). "Wikipedia's Indian Problem: Settler Colonial Erasure of Native American Knowledge and History on the World's Largest Encyclopedia". Settler Colonial Studies: 1–22. doi:10.1080/2201473X.2024.2358697. ISSN 2201-473X.
I have read this message, and I have put some time into checking the relevant history, and I have a general idea of an answer, but for several reasons at present I am not ready to compose that answer. I'll try to get back to you as soon as I reasonably can. JBW (talk) 21:27, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
@Freoh: Sorry to keep you waiting, but I am now able to write a few comments which I hope will clarify things a little.
When I read your message above, my first thought was that I doubted whether I could say anything new to help you, which hadn't already been said to you, either on your talk page or in any of the various discussions that have taken place on other pages. However, I checked through the history, and I have selected some examples which seem to me to encapsulate the problems which have led to the block.
  • Consider your post at http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:Science&diff=prev&oldid=1142015309#Neutral_origins_in_lead in which you wrote "Headbomb is asserting the superior importance of white people while arguing that it's not because they're white". In fact Headbomb had said nothing of the kind: what he had said was "I couldn't give a shit about the color of their skin, but yes, the ancient Greeks are that important to the history of science". Misrepresenting what others say to serve your purpose of promoting your personal view is unconstructive, and is certainly one of the factors which have contributed to the block.
  • You had some excellent advice from Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist, and you said to her "Wow, thank you! I did not expect so much help, and I really appreciate your attention. I will mull this over for a bit before attempting another appeal". However, what you have done since here is very different from what she said. You may find it helpful to re-read what she wrote to you, re-read what you have written above, and think about why I see it that way. The following comments about what you have written here may help to indicate the kinds of things I have in mind.
  • You start out by phrasing your message as a courteous request for clarification: "I am still unclear about what was lacking in my request", etc, and ask me to "please let [you] know what [I] would like [you] to acknowledge before being unblocked". You then go on to ask me such things as whether an answer is for you to "acknowledge" such things as that American nationalists opposed your proposed content, and that you sometimes express my opposition to administrative actions. With the best will in the world, you cannot believe that if you had said those things in your unblock request I would have accepted the request; that is, as you know full well, not what I, the blocking administrator, or any other administrator has indicated is the reason for the block. It is your claim as to what the reason is, and you give it not as a constructive suggestion as to what may be the answer to "Could you please let me know what you would like me to acknowledge before being unblocked?" but as a polemical statement of your view, in opposition to the contrary view which you know is held by the administrators concerned. There we have both a passive aggressive message, and misrepresentation of a view as mine when you know it is yours.
  • Those are just a few of examples to illustrate some of the problems with your editing, not an exhaustive coverage. I don't think any useful purpose would be served by cataloguing a long list of them, because there is plenty of documentation of the problems in other pages, which you have seen, and in most if not all cases where you have yourself commented. If those examples were all there were to it then you would not be blocked, but it is far from all there is to it. You have persisted with countless examples, sometimes at great length, with a dogged refusal to drop a matter when you have said far more than enough to make your point, and when you have known full well that consensus is solidly against you.
  • It seems to me that there are in fact two fundamental problems, which lie behind those I have mentioned and others. The first one is that you absolutely cannot see anyone else's point of view. Whenever you see someone express an opinion which you think is wrong, you attribute to them particular evil motives, usually with no evidence at all other than your assumption as to what must motivate someone to hold the view in question. I will give you just one example. You have accused the administrators you have disagreed with of, amongst other things, acting out of "American exceptionalism". I can assure you that nowhere on earth is there anyone more solidly opposed to American exceptionalism than I am. I regard it as totally vicious and evil. To impute that motive to me is absurdly wide of the mark; I also see no evidence that it is true of any of the other administrators you have accused of the same. The second of the two fundamental problems, it seems to me, is your apparent inability to know when to stop.
I have no idea whether you will find those remarks helpful or not, but I have put in the time and effort it took to think them out and write them down in the hope that you will find at least some of them helpful. I hope you will think of what I have said, and consider whether you can see them as constructive attempt to clarify the issues. It would be a pity if, after I have taken the trouble to make this attempt to help, you were to just take it as yet another example of all the kinds of things that you have been accusing various people of; I hope you won't. JBW (talk) 14:15, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Is this your account?

Hi JBW, sorry to bother you but is JameslWatson your account? I noticed that their only edit so far is a barnstar on Helloidonthaveaname's talk page. Thanks. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 04:11, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

@CanonNi: No, it's nothing to do with me. Looks highly dubious. JBW (talk) 09:04, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
@CanonNi: [11] JBW (talk) 14:25, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
They've confirmed that it is their account in this edit, before blanking most of their talk page. I feel like some action has to be taken. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 10:58, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
Never mind, reported at ANI and blocked. Sorry to bother you with all of this. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 12:01, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
@CanonNi: That's OK, no need to apologise. You are very welcome to let me know about things like this. I thought it would almost certainly be an indef block before long, and I was on the borderline between blocking right away and giving them one more chance. If I had seen that they had removed others' profiles from Adopt-a-user I certainly would have blocked them, without hesitation. JBW (talk) 15:11, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

See, this is why I wouldn't make a good admin.

I feel like I'm being trolled by a couple of IPs. I already provided a link to the requested information in my first edit summary at Massey Ferguson but I'm being accused of spewing nonsense.   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 04:27, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

NB: This isn't any sort of request for action. I'm just venting.   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 04:40, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

@Skywatcher68: Well, you didn't make a "request for action", but I took the initiative and did an action anyway, by semi-protecting the article. It seems absolutely obvious that at least one of the IP addresses is Mr.right.247 avoiding his block, so maybe I should block the IP too. Thinking of that username reminds me that Bishonen once said something along the lines of "... like how we always block any account with "Truth" in its user page on sight. Well, actually we don't, but maybe we should." She was spot on, and the same probably applies to names with "Right" in them. JBW (talk) 10:13, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
That "request for action" line was in case either IP followed me here, lest they start thinking I was deliberately trying to get you involved. :-)   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 14:11, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
By the way, I just did a DNS check on both IPs; both are likely Mr.right. https://search.dnslytics.com/ip/69.14.88.138 https://search.dnslytics.com/ip/24.214.25.143   –14:18, 30 May 2024 (UTC) Skywatcher68 (talk) 14:18, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
@Skywatcher68: That's what I guessed, but thanks for confirming it for me. I have blocked both IP addresses. That looks like a really useful IP check tool that you have linked to, but I didn't know of it. I will make a note of it for future use. JBW (talk) 15:27, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
That site was better before they put the more useful parts behind a paywall. To an admin such as yourself, the subscription might be worth it.   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 17:09, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Draft:List of CSI: Vegas episodes

The episode summaries on this list are identical to the episode summaries given on this website. For example, episode 1 ("Legacy") – "An attack on Jim Brass brings Gil Grissom and Sara Sidle out of retirement, only for them to uncover a conspiracy that could jeopardize the Las Vegas crime lab and lead to the release of thousands of convicted killers." – is a word-for-word match to the summary here. Bgsu98 (Talk) 20:27, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

@Bgsu98: OK, thanks for clarifying that. However, it isn't realistic to just give a link to a page on a website and expect an administrator to search all over that website to find what you are referring to; if it isn't as simple as being able to just link to one or two pages containing the actual copied text then it's likely to be too complicated to be dealt with by speedy deletion. However, in this case there is a more important issue. The text you have quoted above was added to Wikipedia at 16:15, 20 October 2021, as you can see from the editing history of CSI: Vegas; it was added to csi.fandom.com at 22:54, 21 June 2022, so the copyright infringement is the other way round, with the Fandom page violating copyright of the Wikipedia article. JBW (talk) 20:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
No, I totally understand, that was my fault for not being more specific when I tagged the article. Thank you for the additional information! Bgsu98 (Talk) 20:57, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Block evasion

107.77.198.149 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

The above IP is being used as block evading other IPs that you currently have blocked for edits at Draft:Silent Hill: Townfall and Draft:Annapurna Animation. Could you block this IP address? Thanks. 73.67.145.30 (talk) 16:44, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – June 2024

News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2024).

Administrator changes

readded Graham Beards
removed

Bureaucrat changes

removed

Oversight changes

removed Dreamy Jazz

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • The Nuke feature, which enables administrators to mass delete pages, will now correctly delete pages which were moved to another title. T43351

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:44, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

User:Cwootten13

I don't appreciate you unblocking a user I blocked without consulting with me, especially with the rationale "clearly a mistake".--Bbb23 (talk) 22:26, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

I apologise, Bbb23. I usually don't unblock without consulting the blocking administrator, even if I do think it's a mistake, and it would have been better if I'd consulted you this time. It does seem to me to have been a mistake, as I can't see anything abusive about the use of two accounts, but I should have consulted you, in case you had seen something I hadn't. Obviously it's a bit late now, but do you see an abuse of multiple accounts which I have missed? JBW (talk) 22:42, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
It's too late for a discussion about the merits of the block.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:45, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

UTRS Problem

Dear JBW, I am removed from UTRS for six months and i have no option to inform you about this problem as they said that i couldn't make a proper unblock request, so i couldn't use UTRS now. So, i am messaging you now as i have no choice to contact others for help and i want you all to help me in this problem as i have no one to help me fix this problem, so you should help me to fix this problem by resolving this dispute between me and the other editors for this block now as i have no other way of solving this dispute without you. 117.196.144.125 (talk) 06:52, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

I am Vishal Kandassamy who is asking for help to you, and my account is Vishal Kandassamy only. I want to take me to a dispute resolution process for this problem and unblock me also, so i want to do that. I want to discuss and cure this problem and unblock me, so i want to be unblock now, JBW. 117.196.145.52 (talk) 12:04, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
I think it very unlikely that you will ever be unblocked, because you just don't seem to have any understanding whatsoever of the issues related to the block. However, if you continue to evade the block then it will not be just "very unlikely"; you will certainly not be unblocked. JBW (talk) 13:08, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

2024 Mannheim stabbing

Why? Why? Why? I'm tired of trying to explain WP:OR and WP:SYNTH to that IPv6; would you mind giving it a shot?   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 00:52, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

@Skywatcher68: I've read both the talk page discussion and the edits to the article, and my impression is that there's no point putting more effort into explaing the policies, because the editor understands what they are but just doesn't accept them. Therefore instead I have posted a message explaining the need to follow policies even if one disagrees with them. It is unfortunate that IPv6 are usually so dynamic that posting a warning to an IP talk page is likely to be futile, as it's likely that the next time tge person edits their IP address has moved o , and they never see the warning, but I'll post a note on the talk page of the last IP address they have used anyway. JBW (talk) 08:45, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

RevDel?

Hi,

Is it necessary to RevDel http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Rushkaar_Technology_Private_LTD&diff=prev&oldid=1228657952 so the page doesn't get deleted but their edit does? Thx. Also, would it be possible to remove their talk page access? Myrealnamm (💬pros · ✏️cons) 13:01, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

You've got mail

Hello, JBW. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template. Dondekojo (talk) 14:25, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Regarding accounts with "Truth" in its user page...

Hi, JB, remember this from last month? "Bishonen once said something along the lines of "... like how we always block any account with "Truth" in its user page on sight. Well, actually we don't, but maybe we should." She was spot on, and the same probably applies to names with "Right" in them."

Well, we now have someone called TheCorrector111 removing large swaths of content with little explanation.   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 20:25, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

@Skywatcher68: I have blocked the account. Years ago in cases like this I used to go through AGF and friendly talk page warnings, but it was a waste of time, as such editors are never interested in listening to anyone else, and they end up blocked anyway, so I now move to the block much more quickly. As for the point about user names, I find having "correct" in them is a little less reliable an indication than "truth" and "right", as occasionally it really is someone who has created an account to correct some error, but it's certainly a flag that the user is worth watching for a while. JBW (talk) 21:06, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

SurrealDB incorrectly deleted under WP:G4

Hello JBW, I believe you may have mistakenly deleted SurrealDB under WP:G4 which excludes pages that have undergone improvement.

There's a more detailed explanation I have made at: http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#SurrealDB_speedy_deleted_after_significant_changes

I understand the page was recreated so quickly after the original AfD, however, the company had raised $20m in USD, plus the launch of their cloud beta service which got some media attention which I believe now would establish notability, plus an additional number of other sources I was able to find.

I would like to have the page undeleted and undergo an additional AfD due to these changes, and I understand how you may not have noticed this.

Let me know what you think. Mr Vili talk 10:37, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

@Mr vili: and, in case it's of interest, Black Kite
  1. What happened to the days when it was standard practice to consult the deleting administrator frst, and only have recourse to other venues if that did not produce an outcome that one was willing to accept?
  2. For what it's worth, if I had just been asked I would have restored the page. I do not regard the changes you made to it as sufficient to justify recreating it in the face of the outcome of the deletion discussion, but many years ago I decided that there is so much divergence of opinion about how much change is needed to invalidate a G4 deletion that it just isn't worth arguing about if anyone contests it.
  3. Mr vili, you seem to have a very strong devotion to the cause of keeping this article. Do you have a personal connection to it, such as being one of the developers of "SurrealDB", or some other connection?
  4. A number if things you have said in relation to this article have suggested that your opinions are to some extent based on misunderstandings of the relevant guidelines or policies. For example, in the deletion discussion you said, apparently in answer to comments about the article being promotional, "additionally, currently the company has nothing to gain by 'selling' it on Wikipedia, the database is open sourced"; however, Wikipedia's policy is that no kind of promotional material is allowed, not just promotion for financial gain. JBW (talk) 12:58, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
    Regarding 1. I apologize for not consulting you first, I should've asked first. Regarding 3. No, I have no personal connection to SurrealDB, except using it as a developer. Regarding 4. I believe the article, if it was written in a promotional tone, is an issue that should be highlighted and fixed by editors if possible as opposed to being thrown in the bin or being used as an argument for deletion.
    Of course, I am only one editor and the way I write may not be WP:NOTPERFECT, and I encourage other editors to improve the article collaboratively.
    What do you think is the next best course of action? Personally I think it will survive a new AfD given the new sources I have found, as well as the new recent events involving the topic. Mr Vili talk 13:56, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Happy Adminship Anniversary!

Hoax by Alejitao123

Please also look into User:Alejitao123/sandbox5. It claims that a requirement for Argentine citizenship is to "Convert to the communism." It also claims that "Argentine Russian-language ability" used to be a requirement for citizenship. Thank you, Air on White (talk) 21:15, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

@Air on White: Thank you for pointing that out. I have deleted the page. As you may have seen, I had already deleted a number of userspace pages from that editor. I was tempted to just delete everything in their userspace, but that would be questionable. Checking each one individually was a slow procedure, as in many cases the vandalism is well hidden, and I evidently missed that bit. I will put some more time into the task, and of course you are very welcome to point out any clear cases that you see. JBW (talk) 07:09, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Can you un-delete my page-- Arizona Arts

Can you undelete my wikipedia page for Arizona Arts so I can edit the post to make it fit the guidelines. Since you deleted it I am unable to start over and since I was assigned to create a wiki page for my workplace (Arizona Arts) I would appreciate if you could undo what you did. I read that after a page gets declined I can edit it until I get it right, but you ruined things. Arilynndh (talk) 20:35, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

If there were no other considerations I would be reluctant to restore such material, written from start to finish as a piece of marketing copy, but I would consider possibly doing so. However, there is another problem. The page consisted substantially, and perhaps entirely, of material copied from the web site of the university, some of it verbatim, some of it very closely paraphrased. That is contrary to Wikipedia's copyright policy, and restoring it is not permitted by policy. Such copied text would not be allowed to be posted anywhere on Wikipedia unless the University were to provide an unambiguous statement that the text is freely licensed for anyone in the world to reuse, either as it is or modified in any way whatsoever, for any purpose whatsoever, subject only to suitable attribution to the Wikipedia page in question. It seems to me highly improbable that will happen. JBW (talk) 07:47, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
Tell me where exactly is it copied from the website. I wrote the whole article with the exception of the departments and the impact reports when I had to consult my boss as well as the department heads of each school. For the facilities I also used the website to write a description of the place, but I used my own words. Arilynndh (talk) 22:34, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
OK, Arilynndh, I have looked back at the deleted draft. The amount of text which was detected as copied was, in fact, much smaller than I remembered, and a significant part of that was trivial matter such as titles and names. Nevertheless, there was some text which was unambiguously copied. Compare, for example, the following from https://arts.arizona.edu/bio/andrew-schulz/:
  • Andrew Schulz joined the University of Arizona as Dean of the College of Fine Arts in July 2018. In January 2019, he was named the inaugural Vice President for the Arts and charged with carrying out the reimagined vision for the arts at the University of Arizona, as defined in the university’s Strategic Plan
with the following from the draft which you posted:
  • In July 2018, Andrew Schulz joined the University of Arizona as dean of the College of Fine Arts ... In January 2019, Schulz was named the inaugural vice president for the arts and was charged with carrying out the reimagined vision for the arts, highlighted in the university's strategic plan.
Those were essentially copies of the same text, with minor changes in wording.
Or turn to https://arts.arizona.edu/impact-reports/#flipbook-df_11514/1/ and compare:
  • The annual State of the Arts Impact Report captures the extraordinary accomplishments of our students, faculty, staff, and alumni
with:
  • Each year, Arizona Arts releases an impact report that captures the extraordinary accomplishments of students, staff, faculty, and alumni.
In view of the fact that the amount of copying was much smaller than had been my impression, I will restore the draft for you to attempt to improve it. However, please bear in mind that you must comply with all of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and that failure to do so may result in deletion of material and possibly a block from editing. JBW (talk) 08:29, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Can you un-delete page made by me.

The page ""Talent Public School Narakkal"" wasn't made for or from advertising point of view, initially the article was an inspiration for me from pages like "Hidhayathul Islam Higher Secondary School" and "Toc-H Public School"

As I created article within for same day edit. I wish to improve it, from a neutral point of view and with WP Guidelines and Policies. Thank you MrBlank7 (talk) 18:02, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

@MrBlank7: The article was absolutely unambiguously promotional, describing its subject in glowing terms. However, there is a more important problem. As you know, almost all the content of the article was copied from the school's website, as can easily be seen by comparing it with https://talentpublicschoolnjarackal.com/ and https://talentpublicschoolnjarackal.com/submenudisplay/ABOUT%20US. It is almost never suitable to copy content from another web site to Wikipedia, for more than one reason, the most important being copyright. When you post anything to Wikipedia you release it for anyone in the world to reuse it, either unchanged or modified in any way whatever, subject to attribution to Wikipedia. It is very rare that the owner of a web site licenses content for such very free reuse, and in those few occasions when they do so, we require proof of the fact. We don't assume that content is freely licensed on the unsubstantiated say so of just anyone who comes along and creates a Wikipedia account. Certainly we can't accept text previously published on a web site which has a copyright notice saying "all rights reserved", as in the case of material you have posted. Copyright infringing text cannot be restored to Wikipedia. JBW (talk) 07:52, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
Yeah, I realise mistake being done. To improve, I meant, removing all the copyrighted texts, and leave only main point of the notable page. Sorry for copying, that indeed too was additions of text. Further allowing to restore the page would be grateful for me to make myself further edits as per neutral point of view. As like told, took as an inspiration to create a page from Hidhayathul Islam Higher Secondary School. So I'd rectify those copying of content from the website rather than filling unnecessary copy of text. MrBlank7 (talk) 11:32, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
@MrBlank7:0 It's natural to look at existing articles to see how to create a new one, but unfortunately not all existing articles are good ones to follow, and Hidhayathul Islam Higher Secondary School is not a good article.
There's no question of restoring copyright infringing text to Wikipedia, but I can email it to you if you enable email in your account preferences. Let me know if you do. JBW (talk) 18:08, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
Surely @JBW, thank you for help. Reach me out by email.
MrBlank7 (talk) 08:06, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
@MrBlank7: I've emailed the wiki markup of the article to you. JBW (talk) 09:56, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Archive

I deleted from NON-archive talk what you already re-archived into ARCHIVE: http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AGeometrized_unit_system&diff=1231874423&oldid=1231154219 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.30.188.245 (talk) 19:05, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

He wrongly restores what is ALREADY re-archived by you: http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AGeometrized_unit_system&diff=1230936662&oldid=1230896811 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.30.188.245 (talk) 19:07, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Woody Paige

Hey, I saw that you EC'd Woody Paige almost a decade ago. Considering no vandalism or sockpuppetry has occurred since the protection was added, could you unprotect it?

Thanks. OzzyOlly (talk) 20:38, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

@OzzyOlly:  Done. Let's hope the problem has gone. JBW (talk) 20:46, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Help with SPI

Hi JBW -- I see you've recently been involved with block evasion by Extrapolaris. I'd appreciate any input you can offer here please! --Rlandmann (talk) 14:00, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

deleted page ISO/IEC 29110

"11:48, 16 March 2023 JBW talk contribs deleted page ISO/IEC 29110 (G12: copyright infringement of http://www.cetic.be/Software-lifecycle-for-Very-Small &ttps://www.researchgate.net/publication/322059955_Applying_Software_Engineering_Standards_in_Very_Small_Entities_From_Startups_to_Grownups Copyright infringing text has been present since the creation of the article"

The copyright of ISO standards is owned by ISO (www.iso.org)no one else can claim copyright. The deleted article was published by the editors of the ISO 29110 series and members of ISO/IEC JTC1/SC7/WG24 to inform and help the VSEs. The page must be restored , the cancellation is not justified. SWSYeng (talk) 16:19, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

@SWSYeng: I'm not entirely sure what you are saying. Do you mean that copyright in all or part of the deleted text is owned by the ISO? If so, far from being a reason why the article should be restored, it is a reason why it must not be restored, as the ISO's copyright statement, as seen at https://www.iso.org/copyright.html, says "All content on ISO Online is copyright protected. The copyright is owned by ISO. Any use of the content, including copying of it in whole or in part, for example to another Internet site, is prohibited and would require written permission from ISO. All ISO publications are also protected by copyright. The copyright ownership of ISO is clearly indicated on every ISO publication. Any unauthorized use such as copying, scanning or distribution is prohibited." JBW (talk) 16:35, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
As ISO is the owner of the copyright cetic.be can not claim any infringement, the copyright is related to ISO publications those can not be copied or scanned and so on. The ISO Technical Committees are used to publish articles on Wikipedia to inform and to promote their standards in many languages,this is a very welcome marketing practice by ISO, please have a look, for instance, at ISO 9000 or ISO 27000 pages, or at http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/List_of_ISO_standards . The same has been done to inform about ISO 29110. Therefore, either Wikipedia removes all the references to ISO and then what is the purpose of Wikipedia? or Wikipedia restore ISO 29110 article. SWSYeng (talk) 14:51, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
(talk page watcher) Facts cannot be copyrighted, so the use of ISO Technical Committees as sources is perfectly fine. However, you must present the facts in your own words. Copying text directly from a source is copyright infringement and against Wikipedia policy. - ZLEA T\C 15:22, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
@SWSYeng:
  1. You seem to be saying that the copyright of the text in question belongs to ISO. Let us assume that you are right. As I have pointed out, ISO clearly and unambiguously states that its material may not be copied for use elsewhere. That means that we cannot publish a copy of the material. It's as simple as that.
  2. Whether anyone else other than ISO can "claim" copyright or not is irrelevant. An editor reported that content of the article had been copied from elsewhere, and provided a URL to a website where it had been published. I checked, and confirmed that was so, indicating that it infringed copyright. It absolutely doesn't matter whether the copyright belongs to that website or to another source which had been copied to that website: it clearly infringes somebody's copyright.
  3. You say that the ISO Technical Committees publish articles on Wikipedia "to promote their standards", and that doing so is "a very welcome marketing practice". It may be very welcome to you, but not to Wikipedia, because editing to promote or market anything is forbidden by Wikipedia policy. However, that is irrelevant in this case, as the copyright issue prevents any consideration of restoring the deleted text, no matter who posted it, and no matter what their purpose in doing so was. JBW (talk) 18:30, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
    For the sake of clarity, I repeat: ISO has the copyright on the standards and related documents, whether they are paid for or free of charge. Everyone is free to describe and inform about these standards, in particular the members of the TCs that create them. Again for the sake of precision, those people have no economic advantage since only ISO can sell the standards.
    But you raise a different issue. "An editor reported that content of the article had been copied from elsewhere, and provided a URL to a website where it had been published. "
    I am not able to give a sure answer because I am not the editor of the text but I am a user and was using it to inform digital companies within our associations of the existence and usefulness of these ISO standards. I will point out your indication to the original editor and to ISO JTC1/SC7/WG24 convenor. Personally, I think it is the other way around, since many web sites of companies and associations use to refer to the Wikipedia pages on standards precisely because they are published by the same people who write them and are therefore a valid source. SWSYeng (talk) 08:47, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
@SWSYeng: I get the impression that there may be some confusion here as to exactly what the issues are, so I will try to clarify them. I hope these comments may be helpful to you.
  1. All that you say there may be true, but it is not relevant to the issue in hand. Certainly "Everyone is free to describe and inform about these standards", but that is not the issue: the issue is describing and informing about the standards in words copied from someone else rather than in one's own words, and in this case in words copied from someone else who has explicitly stated that they do not allow such copying.
  2. For what it is worth I have now confirmed that much, if not all, of the copied text originated at https://www.iso.org/obp/ui/#iso:std:iso-iec:29110:-2:ed-1:v1:en so the sources cited by the editor who reported the copyright infringement were themselves copyright-infringing copies from the original. However, that makes no difference at all, because, as I have explained above, the issue is that it is an infringement of somebody's copyright, no matter whose. JBW (talk) 15:40, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Help with Open Proxy Block

Hi James, I returned back to wikipedia after a few years willing to write an article. However, I notice I have been blocked after being caught by an open proxy block. I don't even know what that means and can't remember what might have happened long ago. Can you please help me get back to editing? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kpaudel969 (talk • contribs) 11:29, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

@Kpaudel969: I don't understand this. If you were blocked, you wouldn't be able to edit this page, unless it were a partial block not applying to user talk pages, but I cannot imagine any situation in which it would make sense for a proxy block to be applied as a partial block, rather than a total block. Can you check whether you can edit other pages? If you really can't then tell me exactly what the notice says which tells you that you can't edit, and I will see if I can help. If that would involve revealing information which you don't wish to make public (such as your IP address, if you prefer to keep it confidential) then you can send it to me by email. JBW (talk) 11:36, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
I see I can still edit. However, here's the exact notice (now wondering what it means):
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason.
Request reason:
Caught by an open proxy block but this host or IP is not an open proxy.
Decline reason:
There is nothing we can do about an IP block unless you tell us what IP address is blocked. If you still can't edit, post another unblock request, stating what IP address it is, or, if for some reason you don't want to make the IP address public, request an unblock at Wikipedia:Unblock Ticket Request System. (The message telling you that you can't edit will say what IP address it is.) The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:03, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
My IP address is 27.34.68.27 if that helps. Thanks. Kpaudel969 (talk) 11:49, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
@Kpaudel969: That relates to an old block which you experienced on 26 August 2015, as you will see if you look back at the unblock request on your talk page. That block has long since ceased to affect you, as you were editing from November 2015 to October 2017. When you posted that unblock request there was no block on the IP address you have given now, so it must have been on another IP address, very likely one that you moved on from years ago. An open proxy is an arrangement whereby anyone can connect to the internet indirectly, through a server somewhere else, rather than directly from their own computer. They are usually blocked from editing Wikipedia because they can be used to evade blocks.
Although your current IP address is not blocked now, it was blocked several times between September 2021 and May 2023 as a P2P VPN, so it is possible that may happen again. A P2P VPN is a type of proxy where connections are made via the computers of other users, rather than from a central server. Sometimes people use a P2P VPN without knowing it by that name, but knowing that they are connecting via a network of users. In some countries people don't even know that they are on such a network, because their ISP has put them on one without telling them (which is generally considered to be unethical, and in many countries is illegal). The article Anonymous P2P gives some information about how P2P networking works, which may or may not be of interest to you. The fact that the last block on the IP address was over a year ago encourages me to think that the IP address is no longer on a P2P VPN, so that it is unlikely to be blocked again. It may have been a use made by a previous user of that IP address, and won't affect you. JBW (talk) 16:09, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Jeiku the one

Hi, thanks for handling those jeikus. Let me know if I need to file a pro forma SPI (I just realised I never did file one). Cheers, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:07, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

@DoubleGrazing: I think this is such a blindingly obvious case that an SPI isn't necessary. JBW (talk) 13:15, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Need your help

Hi. Hope tou would be fine. I recently made new account and need your help. Previously, I edited on the Wikipedia by the accounts like User:Qwef1234, User:What about him?, User: Stereotypical Name, User:RoyalCharm, User:15Shelby and User:BNK2345. I admit that I did extremely wrong on violating the policies by using multiple accounts. I made many accounts but Qwef1234 was the main one, others were used rarely, and were more often after the blocking of the Qwef1234. I also want to clear that I am not related to User:Nauman335 by any means, just major areas of interest are same which led to labeling my account as the sockpuppet of Nauman335. I apologise for my deeds and now want to start from a new end. I have mentioned all the accounts that I owned, and now want to contribute to the Wikipedia by fair means. Hoep you will not disappoint me. Stay good. Wonderland92 (talk) Wonderland92 (talk) 05:23, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Please, reply me. I need your help. Wonderland92 (talk) 12:30, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
Blocked due to admitted block evasion. --Yamla (talk) 12:39, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – July 2024

News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2024).

Administrator changes

added
removed

Technical news

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:58, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

The Chinese in America

Hi JBW. I created the article on the Chinese in America book at the title The Chinese in America. I thought the book was the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC because

  1. a Google search for "The Chinese in America" returns results largely about the book and
  2. the redirect received only 19 views between 1 January 2024 and 29 June 2024.

If there is no primary topic, a disambiguation page is the right approach per WP:NOPRIMARY. If the book is the primary topic, the book should be at the title. If History of Chinese Americans is the primary topic, the title should redirect to there. As you restored the disambiguation page at the title, do you think there is no primary topic for the title "The Chinese in America"? I am inexperienced in the area of article titles and WP:COMMONNAME so could be mistaken and would appreciate your guidance here.

Separately, when I created the book article, I also created Talk:The Chinese in America with WikiProject banners. The talk page was deleted. Would you restore the talk page to the correct location? Thank you, Cunard (talk) 07:35, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

@Cunard: You are absolutely right. I saw the creation of an article over an existing disambiguation page, which is usually an unhelpful thing to do, and acted hastily, without thinking it through. I have returned the article you created to its original title, and I apologise for putting you to the trouble. Thank you for pointing this out, so that I could correct my mistake. JBW (talk) 08:36, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
No worries. Thank you so much for reviewing this and moving the article back! Cunard (talk) 08:41, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Virtua Fighter 5

There's a troll[12] who in the past (going back to 2019 or 2020) keeps stating that the 5th Virtua Fighter game is the final installment, but that's not up to that person to state that. That's up to the Developer and the Publisher and there's been no statement of any kind made by them.[13]-108.208.136.243 (talk) 17:33, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

The 5th Virtua Fighter game has not had a sequel in 18 years. There's isn't even anything in the media regarding a new installment. How is it not the final? 2603:8000:E800:5F4E:45C6:8B0B:E52E:7D01 (talk) 17:48, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
That may or may not be true, but Wikipedia policy is that we don't accept statements because someone who has chosen to edit Wikipedia thinks it must be true: we accept statements because reliable published sources say so. If you edit Wikipedia then you have to accept Wikipedia policies, whether you agree with them or not. (There are aspects of Wikipedia policy that I don't agree with, but I still abide by them.) You have been edit-warring over this for several years; it is time for you to stop. I hope that, now that the policy concerned has been made clear to you, you won't continue. I really hope it won't be necessary to take measures such as protecting the article to stop you, as doing that would cause inconvenience for other editors who wish to make constructive edits. JBW (talk) 19:35, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

AnkitGarg06

Regarding this, the poor guy must be terribly confused and I just wanted to make things easier on him. The pages have already been deleted so the notifications are no longer needed.

Here is a summary of this whole mess:

  1. He wants to change his username to the name of another existing account, which is not his. He tried to do this by moving his userpage. It seems you've already undone this bit.
  2. He wants to create a userpage for himself but the ones he's created have been speedied as promotional. He also made a mainspace page for himself, which I think you've already speedied.
  3. He's trying to get an article through AfC (separate from his autobiography) for which he has an improperly disclosed COI.
  4. He's made a few good faith but terrible edits to random mainspace articles. I was going to talk to him about this but I didn't want to introduce yet another subject when we're already dealing with all of the above.

I would suggest blocking him and solving one thing at a time. Too many things to keep up with at the same time. Un assiolo (talk) 23:07, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

@Un assiolo: OK, I think you are right about most things, and I have undone my reverting of your removal, thanks for explaining your reason. Unfortunately I don't have any more time for this now, but maybe I'll come back to it when I have. JBW (talk) 23:13, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Pirates of the Caribbean block-evasion

Hi, JB. Looks like I found another block evader with the help of DNSlytics: 38.20.133.160 & 216.73.64.155 are both from The Pas, Manitoba, and have a history virtually identical edits. The latter is on a ten-year block and the former just resumed the same behavior which prompted a two-week block last month.   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 18:26, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Maybe 38.20 can be partially blocked from pages related to Pirates of the Caribbean?   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 18:30, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
The problem with a partial block is that it isn't possible to block more than 10 pages, and there are more than that involved. In any case, the very few non-Pirates-of-the-Caribbean-related edits aren't particularly constructive, so there doesn't seem any reason not to give a full block, which I have done. I also discovered that 216.73.64.155 is one of a range of school IP addresses, with an extensive history of vandalism and blocks on particular IP addresses or subranges, so I have consolidated that into one long and wide range block. As always, thanks for letting me know. 😉 JBW (talk) 19:18, 3 July 2024 (UTC)


Same block evader, I'm guessing: 2605:B100:1140:EAC:95E:B59F:8E40:D800.

Similar edits came from 2605:B100:1118:1F2D:4DB5:22BA:C110:F0FD, 2605:B100:1113:DDE1:1902:802C:EE84:1519, and 2605:B100:1113:DDE1:9C75:B8E9:B40A:E613.   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 02:14, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

@Skywatcher68: I've blocked the IP range 2605:b100:1140:eac::/64, but history suggests they will just come back on another range. There's no question of blocking a range big enough to cover all of the IP addresses you have listed. I suppose it just might be possible to put a fairly large number of partial blocks each covering up to 10 articles on subranges of all the IP ranges used, but it would be a very time-consuming task, and even then it would remain to be seen how effective it would be. If you feel like putting in the work of compiling a list of the articles involved, and as many as possible of the IP addresses involved, I will look at it and see whether it seems feasible. Other than that, it's just a question of blocking each new IP address or range when it comes up. JBW (talk) 08:16, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
I have a feeling that putting pending changes protection on the pages for character-related articles, as it already is at Jack Sparrow, would be more beneficial if the IP-hopper keeps returning.   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 13:57, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
@Skywatcher68: Do you know, I hadn't thought of pending changes protection, but it may well be the best option, under the circumstances. JBW (talk) 19:25, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Thought you'd find this amusing

Self-admitted TROLL wants to know what they did wrong.   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 17:45, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes, trolling about their trolling. JBW (talk) 19:26, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Upload request

Hello. Just saw the deletion of the list of boomer slang. I never saw that page (and don't keep up with the dozens or hundreds of Wikipedia's daily deletion noms), can I have a copy in my user space? Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:59, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Have a look

After you topic-banned this user yesterday, that's how they retaliated. Obviously not here to build an encyclopedia. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 11:00, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

@Fylindfotberserk: On the user talk page you will see my response. It is a toned-down version of my first draft message to post there. JBW (talk) 13:49, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
Saw that. Thanks. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 14:11, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

2025 Shropshire Council election deletion

I've noticed you deleted 2025 Shropshire Council election under CSD A11. The subject of the article is a future election (mentioned on 2025_United_Kingdom_local_elections#Unitary_authorities); it can be argued that the creation of an article is too early, but I'm not sure how CSD A11 ("This applies to any article that plainly indicates that the subject was invented/coined/discovered by the article's creator or someone the creator personally knows, and does not credibly indicate why its subject is important or significant.") is at all relevant? Chessrat (talk, contributions) 00:12, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

@Chessrat: The article was created by User:Iseethesea123, and nominated for speedy deletion, as made up, by MrBauer24. The only substantive content of the article was a map of election results, which obviously couldn't be authentic, and so I deleted it. In fact the map shows the results of the 2021 election, and it's likely that it was intended as a first draft for a 2025 article, with the map to be replaced. It was certainly not at all suitable to create it as an article in that state, but I have restored it and moved it to Draft:2025 Shropshire Council election, where you may like to work on it. JBW (talk) 09:33, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
Thank you, that's reasonable. I'll get to work on the draft. Chessrat (talk, contributions) 12:09, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

WP:REFUND

Could you please undel the old Adryenn Ashley to User:SMcCandlish/Incubator/Adryenn Ashley? I s'pect this person is WP:Notable now (for a feature-length documentary film, and a 3-year bestselling book). I'm not sure how much of the original piece is salvageable at all, but would rather not have to start totally from scratch. If it turns out to be utter trash, I'll just speedy it back away. :-)  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:25, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

@SMcCandlish:  Done. I think this could well be the first time I've had such a request for a page I deleted over 8 years ago; in fact only a few months short of 8 years. JBW (talk) 08:35, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
Thanks. Some of it actually looks usable and is stuff I might not have dug up on my own, though the establishment of clear notability may be a challenge. I have a few other writers on non-mainstream subjects I've been looking at (as well as a writers' association and conference) with a similar issue. As with academics, it's easy for them to be influential and even award-winning within a niche without generating a lot of press outside the niche. Same with musicians. Like, I know a guy (and him being a friend, I shouldn't write an article on him) who's been a member (official or live-touring) of every other gothic-industrial band one could think of, but who has no article despite his influence level within the genre. Quite a few academics I read, too, who are clearly leading lights in their subfields, but who don't seem to generate more than passing mention outside academic publications in their subject. Meanwhile any academic who transitions instead to doing things like being a pop-sci editor at a magazine or a TV documentary presenter becomes insta-notable because the entertainment press will profile them repeatedly despite them maybe no longer actually being productively relevant within their original field of study.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  09:31, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
@SMcCandlish: Yes. This is, I think, a major defect in the way that Wikipedia's notability standards operate. JBW (talk) 10:21, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
I've had a bone to pick about this for a long time. Virtually all bit-part actors with more than one credit in the history of Western cinema and television have articles, but the vast majority of academic experts, across all topics, do not, except where they have somehow come to the notice of either the entertainment or the political press. But I don't know how, exactly, to fix it. Trying to propose changes to the notability system is subject to even more resistance than changing the adminship system. Collectively, WP at this point is utterly terrified of meaningful change.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  10:40, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Remove label

Hello dear friend JBW. Please remove the red label from article Rakan Daqar. And tell me how can I create article? ZzFra (talk) 08:03, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

@ZzFra: What red label? The notice on the article calling attention to the deletion discussion, or the notice when you try to edit telling you that only confirmed editors can edit? The notice of a deletion discussion will be gone when the deletion discussion is over, which will be in a couple of days. The editing restriction is currently set to expire on 23 July, but I will be happy to remove it once the deletion discussion is over, if the outcome of that discussion is to keep the article. As for re-creating the article, assuming that is what you mean, if the article is kept at the end of the discussion then you won't need to create it, and you will be welcome to edit the existing article; if, on the other hand, the article is deleted as the outcome of the discussion, then you won't be able to re-create it, as doing so would violate the decision at the discussion. You are, however, welcome to contribute to the discussion. If you do so, you should first look at Wikipedia's notability guidelines, since the reason put forward for deletion is lack of evidence of satisfying those guidelines. JBW (talk) 10:34, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
Thanks, I know this writer well and I researched about him in Iran. I hope you don't delete his article. ZzFra (talk) 17:05, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
@ZzFra: If you meant "I know this writer well personally" (rather than "I know this writer's material well but have no personal relationship with them") then you shouldn't be working on an article about them anyway, per the WP:COI policy.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  09:34, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
I have no relationship with this author, I just researched him and he can have Wikipedia and all his sources are valid. ZzFra (talk) 23:31, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Maeve Kessler blocked

Hi JBW,

Kinda glad, since the editor basically threatened me without reason.

I've just opened a user account, as a positive result, and now I am wondering if I may continue to correct the fictional narrative on Dilgo Khyentse's page.

Is all good now ? No worries ? I would not wish to misstep so soon ! Metokpema (talk) 12:06, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Hi, Metokpema, and welcome to having a Wikipedia account. I don't know anything about Dilgo Khyentse, so I can't express any opinion about edits to that article, but I've had a quick look at some of the edits from the IP address that I think must be you, and I didn't see any problems, so it's probably fine for you to continue. JBW (talk) 15:02, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Virtua Fighter 5

A sockpuppet user[14] is still vandalizing the Virtua Fighter 5 page[15], making a statement that's up to those who made the game to say that its the final game and this user is ignoring the fact that they're still making updates to the last game from 2021.108.208.137.30 (talk) 22:11, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

I want to know about 4 question from you.

Hey admin take my greetings. I am a newly joined user and interested to edit.But I do not want to edit at this time. I will edit later if it is possible. So I want to know about 4 question from you.

1. How do I edit the article by adding acceptable information?

2. How do I add references to articles?

3. How do I draw attention to a user in my talk page without commenting on his talk page?

4. How do I communicate with others through email?

I expect you will answer this. Ksmda12 (talk) 01:53, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Are you really a new user? In some ways you don't give that impression, but I will take your word for it. I will answer your questions out of order, starting with the ones which I think are easiest.
  • 3: There are several slightly different versions of how to do this, but the following is as good as any. If you post on a talk page, either your own or another one, and you want to call another user's attention to your post, do the following. Suppose for example that I am the user you wish to notify. Then in your message include {{ping|JBW}}. Make sure that you also sign your message with ~~~~. If you do that, the user will be automatically notified of your message. (WARNING: Where you typed {{ping|JBW}} it will show up on the page as @JBW: but just typing @JBW: will not work.) Also, make sure that you post {{ping|JBW}} and ~~~~ in the same message: doing one and then making a separate edit to do the other won't work. Now here is a real example of doing that: @Ksmda12:. You should receive a notification from that.
  • 4: Go to your preferences. Email options are in the "user profile" tab. Set an email address, and make sure that "Allow other users to email me" is selected. After you have done that, if you are on the user page or user talk page of any user, there will be an "email this user" link. (To get to preferences, if you are using the default user interface (known as "Vector 2022") you need to use a drop-down list from the little silhouette of a person's head near the top right hand corner of the page. However, I don't recommend Vector 2022; in my opinion "MonoBook" is much easier to use. That too can be changed in preferences.)
  • 2: Adding references can, I'm afraid, be confusing for new editors. The main guideline on referencing is Wikipedia:Citing sources, but that is so long and complex that there's a simpler version at Help:Referencing for beginners.
  • 1: I'm afraid there is really no simple answer to that question, because there are many different aspects of it, and many different situations that may arise. On your talk page I will give you some links to various policies, guidelines, and information pages, which may help. Don't try to read and learn all of them, because there's too much there, but do have a look and see if some of them are useful to you, and of course you can always come back and read more of them later, if you wish to. However, I will give you one piece of advice which I very strongly urge you to follow. Start out by making very small improvements to articles, and don't make major changes until you have a significant amount of experience of how Wikipedia works. New editors who try to dive straight into large scale editing, such as writing whole new articles, very often have a frustrating and disheartening experience, as they keep doing things they didn't know wouldn't be acceptable, so that their work keeps getting reverted or deleted.
I hope at least some of those comments may be helpful to you. JBW (talk) 19:43, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Advice for the process of investigation

Hello, thankyou for responding to my recent request for help from a administrator, I am wondering if you can help me with clarification of the process for investigation into these matters for now and in the future as I do not want to become the problem. Thankyou for your time. Foristslow (talk) 21:23, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Please block M S Hassan

Can you block this user, M S Hassan for reverting contructive edits by other users indefinitely. This user have been blocked thrice for edit warring. Thank you in advance. 175.136.86.211 (talk) 13:08, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

I didn't revert any of your edits, in fact you reverted my edit without any explanation. M S Hassan (talk | contributions) 13:26, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – August 2024

News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2024).

Administrator changes

readded Isabelle Belato
removed

Interface administrator changes

readded Izno

CheckUser changes

removed Barkeep49

Technical news

  • Global blocks may now target accounts as well as IP's. Administrators may locally unblock when appropriate.
  • Users wishing to permanently leave may now request "vanishing" via Special:GlobalVanishRequest. Processed requests will result in the user being renamed, their recovery email being removed, and their account being globally locked.

Arbitration

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:00, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Need to open SPI case on 1xbet

Hi. Take a look here please and notice that Keith renewed sockpuppets network on Afd 1xbet Indiana's Football (talk) 14:26, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Happy First Edit Day!

Wrong name

For your JamesAWatson user account, could you change it to say that it is an alternate account of JBW instead of an alternate account of JamesBWatson? Loymdayddaud (talk) 17:35, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

@Loymdayddaud:  Done. I don't really think it matters much, because it's an old account which last edited over 8 years ago and will never edit again, and anyone who tried to follow the links to JamesBWatson would have been redirected to JBW anyway, but we may as well have it updated. JBW (talk) 20:40, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
Okay. Thanks! Loymdayddaud (talk) 02:18, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

You

Kid why do you need to remove my edit algea is a bikont exept bleu green algea, algea is a paraphly group kid dont you dare removed it i have rigth about my opion kid im gonna edit again if you remove it im gonna be mad kid that not how life works DasisNietgut (talk) 13:17, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Image

Not saying I disagree with your decline(I placed the other notice giving a week, which I'm still content with) but the user at issue has freely admitted he did not take the photo. 331dot (talk) 11:31, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

@331dot: Yes, I have seen that, but I hadn't at the time when I saw and reviewed the speedy deletion nomination. It isn't reasonable for someone who makes a speedy deletion nomination to expect a reviewing administrator to search all through the editing history of the editor who created the page (or file) to see whether there's relevant evidence; if the issue isn't readily visible to anyone looking at the page, then it's necessary to give an explanation or a link to an explanation, whether by including it in the speedy deletion template, putting it in an edit summary, or posting on the talk page.
Apart from all that, even now that I have seen the talk page discussion, I am not convinced that there is proof of copyright infringement. The talk page discussion includes comments based on the belief that the photographer owns the copyright. That may certainly be true, but it is very likely that it isn't. From what has been said it seems quite likely that the photograph was taken on behalf of its subject, and then given to the subject, unambiguously with the intention that it would then be the property of that subject, and they they would be able to use it as they saw fit, including posting it on Wikipedia. If so, the photographer has transferred the copyright to the subject, whether or not they have gone through a formal procees of documenting the fact. I therefore don't think that there is an unambiguous copyright infringement, as required for either a G12 or an F9 deletion, though there is perhaps enough doubt about copyright for the image to be subject to a delayed F4 deletion.
My final comment is that all this is probably fairly irrelevant anyway, as the editor is probably getting close to an NH indef block. JBW (talk) 12:03, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
I dare say you're probably right. Thanks for giving your clarification. 331dot (talk) 12:37, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the advice you gave to Kalinators

Recognising that Commons and enwWiki are different, the speedy deletion rationale I used is almost always acknowledged there by deletion, on the balance of probabilities that the uploader, >99% of the time, will not be licenced by the photographer to licence it to Commons. There, it is anticipated that any legitimate claim to VRT will resurrect the file. I think it is not unreasonable to take the same view here.

I'm not quarrelling with your decision, far from it. I have a firm belief that any deletion should be a 'double key process' as a safeguard against 'judge, jury, and executioner' folk. I just felt you might be interested in what may be extra information for you.

My nomination had a happy side effect - your well thought out advice.

The picture will take its chances. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 13:37, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

I have only now noticed the section above. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 13:49, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
@Fiddle Faddle: Actually, I think it may have had a very unhappy side effect - my wasting my time on composing a message offering advice which I knew damned well was unlikely to achieve anything, instead of just giving the block which was obviously on its way anyway. I do that kind of thing fairly often; I really don't know why. 😕 JBW (talk) 14:16, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
But you can save it for future use.
We have a similar approach, I think, which is to start with kindness and to discover how that might be received. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 15:00, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
I am quietly working on an essay - User:Timtrent/Kindness as a Standard Operating Procedure which is in its very early stages. I think you would have an excellent influence on it, should you choose. Please ignore that fact that it is in notionally private user space and edit to your heart's content. I intend to open it to a wider catchment of editors in due course. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 15:11, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
@Fiddle Faddle: A couple more thoughts. Commons and en.wiki have very different copyright policies, with the Commons policy much more strict. I think Wikipedia's copyright policy is probably the worst of all our policies; it's an absolute mess, and if I were to act according to what I would like the policy to be, rather than according to my understanding of what it actually is, there are many images which I would delete. Also, quite apart from any copyright consideration, personally I see no good reason why both images and drafts of this kind shouldn't be speedy-deletable for the same reason that similar self-promotional material can be G11-deleted if it's posted as a user page. However, WP:CSD says it can't. ☹️ JBW (talk) 14:31, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
Enwiki's policies are certainly a mess. Commons is almost black and white. They don't allow Fair Use, and I doubt enWiki is correct in allowing it. Commons has c:COM:PCP and enWiki seems not to have it.
I agree totally on G-11-ing self promotional material. But some we can and some we can't. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 15:03, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
@Timtrent: Whether allowing "fair use" is legally right or not, my opinion is that it is morally wrong. If I create something, I should own it, and it should be up to me to decide who can use it; I don't regard it as "fair" to allow other people to use it without my permission, even under restricted conditions. My original draft of this message contained a fairly extended account of why I think U.S. copyright law is appalling, but I have decided to just abbreviate it to the following few comments. United States copyright law, unlike the copyright laws of most countries, was founded not in order to protect the right of the creator of a work to decide who can use it, but in order to protect the right of a business to make a profit by publishing the work; the essential idea behind "fair use" is that if by using your work without your permission I'm not preventing someone from making a profit, then there's no problem, because that's the only right that matters. 🤮 JBW (talk) 19:21, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
To me it seems farce about ace, does that. I dislike Fair Use, it abbreviates to FU for a reason! Even so in another life I make use of it. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 20:06, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

User:Arepticous

Hello,

Could you please take a look at my talk page? There's a message on there from this user regarding an unblock that you made 5 albert square (talk) 21:34, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Apology

im very sorry mate about my sons behavior he used my phone and i looked at my phone and saw it,can you forgive me mate? DasisNietgut (talk) 15:33, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

15:37, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
Im not joking im telling the truth DasisNietgut (talk) 15:59, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
Why do think im lying? DasisNietgut (talk) 16:39, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Admin's Barnstar
Dealing with unblock requests is tough. It was my main activity for a week or two, but I eventually gave up on an ever-increasing backlog and enormous amounts of time spent per case, just to be rewarded with people continuing to do what they did before the block. Thank you very much for your patience and frustration tolerance in preventing CAT:RFU from breaking down. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:00, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
@ToBeFree: Thank you. It's reassuring to know that someone appreciates something one does, obviously. If it's of any interest, when I first became an administrator I made reviewing unblock requests one of my main tasks, but after a while I gradually came to do it less and less often, because I find in several ways it's very frustrating. I still do it reasonably frequently, but I am certainly not one of the administrators who do most of the unblock requests. JBW (talk) 21:43, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
😊 Oh, I didn't know you've done this since the beginning. I didn't dare for quite a while, I think.
Regarding frequency, heh. 🙂 Yamla needs a barnstar too, for example. I hope it's okay if I copy yours; you gave me the idea! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:01, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
@ToBeFree: You seem to have found the main ones. It's an alarmingly small number, hich is why there's always a huge backlog of unblock requests, with blocked editors frequently having a very long wait, which is one of the reasons why I still sometimes help out. JBW (talk) 09:33, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Fluddsskark / Carpetdoor12

Hi! I noticed something strange about Fluddsskark (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). The user caught my attention by posting a comment[16] that I thought might be the Dave Plummer Troll.[17] My conclusion was that the accusations are different so most likely not the same person, but the filter log is interesting.

Looking at your comment here[18] and the block log[19] It looks like the promotional name issue was resolved by renaming User:Fluddsskark to User:Carpetdoor12 in October of 2023.

However, it looks like the name was changed back to Fluddsskark[20] In July of 2024. I don't have the right permissions to view the "(per request)" link in the above, so I don't know why it was changed back. Could you please take a quick look at this? Somehow I suspect that I am missing something and might be seeing a problem where there isn't one. --Guy Macon Alternate Account (talk) 12:58, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Fluddsskark here, I only wanted to talk about Dave Plummer because I saw a Twitter thread about him, but I didn't know there was some sort of unrelated warfare on there. Anyways, I only asked to remove the Carpetdoor12 username because it was my personal email's name, and my current username is my permanent username, not some promotional name. Fluddsskark (talk) 13:16, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
@Guy and Fluddsskark: A very quick glance at the links isn't enough to tell me much, and right now I don't have time to do more than that, but I'll try to remember to have another look when I do get time. However, Fluddsskark, any edit which contains a sentence beginning "In Twitter, it has been discovered ..." is likely to be very questionable, to say the least. There is absolutely no reasonable way of regarding Twitter/X as a reliable source. JBW (talk) 13:57, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
Take your time. The username issue is either a minor issue with no hurry to address it or not an issue at all. Also, just to be clear, I don't believe that Fluddsskark is an any way related to the Troll who has been attacking Plummer for years. The only connection is that the troll's tireless efforts to paint Plummer as a criminal are the reason why Twitter threads like that exist. --Guy Macon Alternate Account (talk) 20:28, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

ANI

See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#OR on Ba 'Alawi sada. Cheers. CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 17:26, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – September 2024

News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2024).

Administrator changes

removed Pppery

Interface administrator changes

removed Pppery

Oversighter changes

removed Wugapodes

CheckUser changes

removed

Guideline and policy news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:44, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Typhoon Yagi Speedy Deletion

Hello! I see that you declined the request for speedy deletion for Typhoon Yagi. I was the one that made the request. There are several Typhoon Yagi's throughout time, but the one that formed this year is very significant compared to the other ones and warrants a move. There was a discussion on the Typhoon Yagi (2024) talk page about moving the article to Typhoon Yagi because the 2024 typhoon was the only one that caused any significant impacts. The discussion can be found here, where there's a clear consensus on moving the article. I was not involved in the discussion, but I did close it per WP:NAC. I was not able to move Typhoon Yagi (2024) to Typhoon Yagi because of the existence of the redirect. Are you able to delete the Typhoon Yagi redirect with this reason? INeedSupport :3 21:07, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

@INeedSupport: OK, I'll make the move. For future reference, it would have helped to have mentioned the discussion when making the deletion request. JBW (talk) 21:10, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
@INeedSupport: Oh dear. I see that you did mention it, and somehow I failed to notice. My sincere apologies. JBW (talk) 21:12, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
You’re good. Thank you! INeedSupport :3 21:41, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
I messed up moving Talk: Typhoon Yagi (2024) to Talk: Typhoon Yagi and I can't seem to fix it. Can you fix it please? Thank you! INeedSupport :3 21:53, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
@INeedSupport: I have moved it. I hope I have done it correctly. JBW (talk) 22:00, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
Looks like User:HurricaneEdgar beat you to it by one minute. Due to this, the talk page is a redirect to itself, and the contents is gone. Are you able to revert that? Sorry for giving you a lot of trouble! INeedSupport :3 22:07, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
@INeedSupport: Hell. I hate situations like this. I find it can be really difficult to trace through the history of the various moves and deletions and make sure you know exactly what is what, so that I restore the correct version. However, I have once again tried to put it right, and once again I hope this time I have got it right. Unfortunately I am now out of time, so if it's still wrong I'm afraid I won't get a chance to put it right for quite some time. 🤞 JBW (talk) 22:18, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
Incidentally, the kind of problem caused by User:HurricaneEdgar and me trying to do the same thing at the same time couldn't happen with editing a page, because i would have been stopped by an edit conflict, but unfortunately there's no protection against a move conflict. JBW (talk) 22:22, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
It's all good now! Thank you so much for your help! Sorry for giving you a lot of trouble! INeedSupport :3 22:36, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Article for Callum Reynolds

Hi JBW, I would like to build an article for English footballer Callum Reynolds, who's playing in the EFL (professional football) for the first time following Bromley's promotion. I believe it's time to create an article page for him, but it says it requires admin access to be created, can you please unprotect it so we can create the article? I have several sources, from clubs that he played for (Bromley, Dagenham, Barnet, Aldershot, Boreham Wood), as well as independent sources such as this BBC article and this. Thank you ChampsRT (Profile • Talk) 07:06, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

@ChampsRT: I think you should ask Jo-Jo Eumerus, who protected the article title. I see that Jo-Jo Eumerus said at the time of protection that the article should not be recreated without a deletion review; they may or may not still think that. JBW (talk) 08:33, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
Hi JBW, I did ask Jojo about this issue, and he was not sure if those sources I found are enough, see here for more details ChampsRT (Profile • Talk) 11:19, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
@ChampsRT: OK, fair enough. I see that Jo-Jo Eumerus said that the closing administrator may not be the best person to ask, and that is a reasonable point.
I have had a look at the sources you have given above. I'm afraid none of them looks to me as though it goes any significant way towards establishing notability according to Wikipedia's notability guidelines. The BBC pages you link to are just news reports of signings, and not substantial coverage of him. In fact nothing I have seen suggests that he satisfies Wikipedia's notability guidelines. (To avoid any doubt, I am describing my impressions relating to the notability guidelines, not my own opinion. I am far from being a great fan of the notability guidelines.) On the whole my advice is that any article about him would be likely to go the same way that the previous ones went, so any work on it would be wasted. However, if despite that you still wish to try, I suggest creating a draft and then taking it to Wikipedia:Deletion review. If you do create a draft you are welcome to ask me to look at it and express an opinion. JBW (talk) 14:56, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
No problem, thanks JBW ChampsRT (Profile • Talk) 00:52, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

ZeehanLin

Could you review his unblock request? Needs a fresh perspective and insight. Thanks -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:13, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

@Deepfriedokra:  Done 😖 JBW (talk) 19:27, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
Sorry, but thanks/ -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:40, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

About your partial block of 2409:40C2:0:0:0:0:0:0/33

Hi, JB; please block them from The Waqf (Amendment) Bill, 2024 and Central Waqf Council as well.   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 13:26, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

@Skywatcher68: Looking at the editing history of the article, I found that the /33 block wouldn't be enough: it would need a /25 block, and the software doesn't allow bigger bocks than /32. I did think of blocking each /32 subrange that has edited the article, but I had only got as far as doing one of them (2409:40C2:0:0:0:0:0:0/32) when I decided it wasn't worth doing. I am not going to sit here and block all 128 of the /32 subranges, and if I just block those which have edited the article it's very likely that the editing will just move to another one. Therefore I've semi-protected the article instead. JBW (talk) 15:30, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
I was going to take that Central Waqf article to RfPP anyway, if the sneaky vandalism continued much longer. Now I don't have to keep an eye on it.   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 15:40, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
@Skywatcher68: I didn't notice that you mentioned 2 articles above. I'll look at the other one now. JBW (talk) 15:38, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
@Skywatcher68: I've added the other article to the partial block on 2409:40C2:0:0:0:0:0:0/32. If you see the vandalism move to another related range then let me know, and I'll consider whether to protect that one too. JBW (talk) 15:43, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
Will do.   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 15:47, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Inclusion of school shooting threat in school's article?

I've verified that this threat did happen but I believe it fails WP:NOTNEWS and, considering the length of the article, WP:UNDUE.   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 19:32, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

@Skywatcher68: Yes, I agree, on both counts. JBW (talk) 20:25, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

UTRS appeal #92922 revisted.

Now that we've cleared the permaban hurdle, do you think I should decline and recomend trying again so as not to waste the community's time with a futile effort? I need a consensus at UTRS to do so. Or not. Thanks -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:13, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

@Deepfriedokra: I've posted a comment there. JBW (talk) 19:25, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

124.169.141.129's block

Please unblock Special:Contributions/124.169.141.129 per my now-vanished comment. Izno (talk) 20:33, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

@Izno: I think you are mistaken, as putting triple brackets is not something one would be at all likely to do without a reason; nevertheless I will give the benefit of the doubt. However, you may like to consider whether, if you disagree with another administrator's decision, there might be a more friendly way of expressing your different opinion than "That was a bad block and you should reverse it". How about "I think you were mistaken, and I suggest you might revert it", for example? JBW (talk) 20:43, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Premiership of Robert Jenkinson, 2nd Earl of Liverpool

Hi JBW. I requested the deletion of this page for the reasons I explained at WP:RFU. Would you mind fulfilling this request and then restore the record of deletion nomination? Thanks, ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 21:59, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Pssst

User:Nwonwu Uchechukwu P is still blocked....-- Ponyobons mots 22:36, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

@Ponyo: Oops... silly me. That's what comes of allowing my self to get distracted into silly things such as remembering ancient user signatures, instead of keeping my mind on the job. Done now. JBW (talk) 22:39, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Draft:Chief Warrant Officer of the Army

Good Afternoon, JBW.

Draft:Chief Warrant Officer of the Army, I created this page as an update and name change to the Army Staff Senior Warrant Officer. I work directly for the chief Warrant Officer of the Army and would like to know how to make sure the page is restored or how you recommend me going forward in creating a page that will not be deleted. I took out the link to the page that was said to be copyrighted. This was an article my boss did and was given a PDF to share. I uploaded it to the link provided. I understand this was not liked by Wiki and removed that article. Thank you. Goldengeoai 14:47, 22 September 2024 (UTC)


Draft:Dainik Kalyan

Hi, JBW.

Following the creation of Draft:Dainik Kalyan by an IP user, it was submitted as an AfC submission by a globally locked sockpuppet. Since there's only a few minutes between the creation and submitting, I'm thinking they're probably the same person. Is the draft eligible to be deleted under G5 or should the IP be confirmed as a sock first? Since IPs aren't linked to named accounts, I'm not sure how to proceed with this. Please advise. Thanks. Frost 14:47, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

@Frost: There's no clear answer in this situation, and it's a matter of looking at the evidence and making a judgement. Here are my observations. It certainly looks suspicious. As you may know, there are some long-term persistent sockpuppeteers who regularly use the trick of first using IP editing to create a page, and then using a sockpuppet account to edit it, so that it does not get listed as created by that sockpuppet. However, looking through the past history, including deleted history, of the sockpuppets of this editor, I have not seen any occasions where they have done this (though please tell me if you know of cases that I have missed) and also the draft is not on the editor's usual topic. Neither of those proves anything, as the editor does also edit on other topics, but they cast enough doubt to make me think we have to give the benefit of the doubt, and leave it. Nevertheless, if any future editing of the draft gives further grounds for suspicion, I will reconsider it. I have watchlisted the page, but my watchlist has grown so long that I don't always follow up everything, so feel welcome to contact me again if you see anything there that seems worth considering. JBW (talk) 15:42, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
Will do, thanks. Frost 15:54, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

What do "we" do about AI

I have just come across a self publicist using AI (0.9 probability) to generate their draft autobiograohy, rejected the draft and tagged it for CSD. I have to use a custom rationale, because I am not sure we cover it. See Draft:Thierry Rayer. Do you know if we have formulated a policy about this, both for the article/draft and the dieters editors! using it to generate such things? 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 21:46, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

G11 is certainly pragmatic 👍 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 22:02, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
@Timtrent: This is a difficult type of situation, because it sort of skirts around various policies without crashing straight into any of them. Depressingly often I find myself obliged to decline speedy deletion requests for pages which obviously should be deleted, because they just don't fit any of the criteria. The draft has been edited, making it less blatantly promotional than when it was first created, and it avoided any of the blatantly promotional language which one sees in many self-promotional articles, but I still think it had enough of an overall promotional character to justify speedy deletion. I don't think there's any policy about AI generated content, but there's certainly a guideline or essay or something discouraging it. Unfortunately I can't find it now; it isn't WP:AI. Personally I'm against having a policy about it, because the more policies we have the more confusing things get, especially for good faith new editors; the more things there are for editors to wikilawyer about the detailed wording of the policies; the more difficult it becomes to deal with things which without a specific policy would be obviously not OK but which clearly aren't covered by the policy because the editors who made the policy didn't anticipate them, and so on. (See my comment above beginning "Depressingly often I find...") I long for the days when the whole corpus of Wikipedia policies was on one page, which would fit on about two screens full. ...sigh... (That was before my time on Wikipedia, but even when I started out, the body of policies and guidelines was substantially smaller than it is now, and I really don't think we are any better off for the change.) JBW (talk) 22:18, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
Wikipedia's ever expanding policies are evidence that we appear to love tying ourselves up in red tape! We even named a level in our hierarchy 'bureaucrats'! I predict we will become ever more rule and regulation bound until all we do is discuss rules and regulations... until a rule is made against doing that.
As a side note I have no idea how anyone can choose to put themselves through today's RFA! 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 22:24, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
"I don't think there's any policy about AI generated content, but there's certainly a guideline or essay or something discouraging it. Unfortunately I can't find it now; it isn't WP:AI."
Do you mean WP:LLM? Skywatcher68 (talk) 13:28, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
@Skywatcher68 and Timtrent: Yes, that's the one I had in mind. Thanks. JBW (talk) 15:04, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
@Timtrent: You could cite WP:DRAFTREASON#2: "The article consists of machine-generated text, such as ... the output of a large language model". WP:DRAFT isn't policy but there is some desire for it to become a guideline. This being a reason to draftify, it also functions as a reason to keep something as a draft until the problem is solved. —Alalch E. 15:22, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
Thank you Sir! JBW - - SilverBullet X (talk) 20:13, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Apology to JBW

Dear JBW i really want to apologize for my behaviour here on wikipedia earlier this year. I promise to not add nonsense edits to wikipedia ever again. I hope you can accept this apology and that it follows what is allowed on a talk page furthermore i will remain mostly inactive. 90.214.152.236 (talk) 12:08, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

COI issue at Gettysburg College

Hi, JB. Various IPs registered to the college have been removing a sourced statement regarding the swim team as being fake news. The statement, "In September, 2024 the school faced controversy as a black member of the men's swimming team had a racial slur forcibly carved into his chest by teammates," could use admin input regarding its inclusion; mind stopping by when you get a chance?   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 15:00, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

@Skywatcher68: I've partially blocked the /24 range from editing the article for a month. It would probably be OK to do so for much longer, as there's no legitimate reason for anyone using those IP addresses to ever edit the article, in light of WP:COI, but I decided to settle for a month. I've also semi-protected the article for a couple of days, just in case of jumping to another IP address. Personally I'm not convinced that the material should be in the article, being about one incident, but that's obviously an editorial decision, not an admin issue, and I have no intention of getting involved. However, if it is to be in the article then I certainly agree with your taking it out of the lead. JBW (talk) 18:31, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Good evening,

tou have reversed my editing where references are dead links and lead to nowhere.

please do not do this in future as you are reverting edits that are completely genuine and objectively correct. KeithHaynes63 (talk) 22:29, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

@KeithHaynes63: (1) I apologise for my edit summary, which only mentioned notability, but in fact other considerations were perhaps more relevant. (2) One of the references which you removed was attached to the statement "Picture Frame Seduction split up, then reformed in 1999", and checking the reference confirmed that the cited source does indeed support that statement. In your edit summary when you removed that reference, you said that the cited source only had a passing mention of the subject of the article; that may be true, but since the mention was a reliable source for a statement in the article, and no other source for that statement is there, removing the reference was a mistake. You may be making the mistake of confusing the use of references to establish notability (where brief passing mentions are of no use) and the use of references for verifying article content, where the criterion is supporting that content, no matter how briefly. (3) Although removing dead references in articles on the face of it seems an obvious thing to do, in fact it is not always helpful. A dead reference may serve to indicate where there was a source for information in the past, even if it is no longer available, and sometimes it may help an editor to find another source, or in some cases the same source, if it has been moved to another URL, or if it is still where it was but there was a mistake in the reference. Very often marking a reference as dead is more helpful than removing it. JBW (talk) 13:03, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
Ok thanks for the clarification KeithHaynes63 (talk) 20:36, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Draft:Chief Warrant Officer of the Army

Draft:Chief Warrant Officer of the Army, I created this page as an update and name change to the Army Staff Senior Warrant Officer. I work directly for the chief Warrant Officer of the Army and would like to know how to make sure the page is restored or how you recommend me going forward in creating a page that will not be deleted. I took out the link to the page that was said to be copyrighted. This was an article my boss did and was given a PDF to share. I uploaded it to the link provided. I understand this was not liked by Wiki and removed that article. Thank you. Goldengeoai 14:47, 22 September 2024 (UTC) Goldengeoai (talk) 17:36, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

@Goldengeoai: The reason for the deletion is that most of the content of the draft was copied from an article in "Newsliner". As far as I am concerned, I don't have any other objection to the content of the draft, and I see no reason why an article on the subject shouldn't be created. Newsliner says "Original Newsliner articles may be reproduced providing credit is given to USAWOA". As far as I can see, you didn't give such credit, but that is not a big deal, because it would be easy enough to rectify the omission by adding an attribution. However, it isn't quite that simple. When you post anything to Wikipedia you give permission for it to be reused, in whole or in part, either as it is or modified in any way whatsoever, for any purpose, subject to credit being given. "Original Newsliner articles may be reproduced" is not the same as "Original Newsliner articles may be republished with whatever changes anyone would like to make, even if those changes drastically change the meaning". It may be that the people responsible for publishing the Newsliner for USAWOA would not object to reuse under such broad licensing terms, but Wikipedia policy doesn't allow me to assume that is so. You may be able to get permission for reuse of the Newsliner article under sufficiently open licensing terms, as described at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials, but you may find it simpler to just rewrite the draft in your own words, avoiding copying any of the original. Whichever of those two routes you follow, you should be careful to make sure you follow the guideline on conflict of interest. JBW (talk) 19:33, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
@Goldengeoai: After posting my message above, I realised that you sent me a message about this on 22 September, and I failed to reply. I apologise for that oversight. JBW (talk) 19:35, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Crickettestruns

We overlapped at handling the UAA report on Crickettestruns (talk · contribs) - the sandbox was definitely promotional but where's the promotion in the username? Cabayi (talk) 08:47, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Meh. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 08:49, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
@Cabayi: There was a link "cricket test runs" in the page, and clicking it took me to a promotional web page. I didn't notice that "cricket test runs" was not actually the name of the linked web page, but just text that the editor had added to the link in the Wikipedia page. Evidently I acted too hastily. Thanks for calling my attention to the mistake. JBW (talk) 08:57, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for fixing. Cabayi (talk) 09:02, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

You Got a Mail!

Hello, JBW. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

AF1011 (talk) 11:11, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – October 2024

News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2024).

Administrator changes

added
removed

CheckUser changes

readded
removed

Guideline and policy news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:59, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Another editor with "truth" in their username

Hi, JB. Check out Truthbetoldkz when you get a chance.   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 23:00, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

@Skywatcher68: Well, yes & no. No edits for over 13 hours now, nor any since the last warning, so I don't think there's any need to step in now, unless they start up again. Also, unusually for Truther editors, the changes, although unexplained, don't look to me obviously inappropriate; is its inclusion justified? The first section the editor has been removing is just a report of one person's opinion, expressed in an interview. As for the second section, I really don't know what the point of it is intended to be. Apparently he is the largest shareholder in an investment company; so what? Why is that a "controversy"? Maybe there's a reason which would make sense to someone with relevant prior knowledge, but in its present form I can't see what its significance is. None of this is to deny that the editor, like so many Truth-editors, may be here to whitewash an article for which they have a conflict of interest; that is very likely, but I don't think there's any case for taking action on the basis of such general suspicions. Having said that, however, there is one aspect of their editing which is unacceptable and that they haven't been warned about, namely edit-warring, so I'll drop them a note about that. JBW (talk) 13:41, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Deletion review for Professional wrestling school

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Professional wrestling school. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. McPhail (talk) 16:50, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

My edit to DailyOM

Howdy. I apologize for my edit to DailyOM that you reverted, I was trying to fix the title of a reference that had "500 Internal Server Error". I accidentally used the title of another reference in that article that also had a 500 error for its title. I see you removed the reference completely afterwards but there's still another reference to the same website with 500 Internal Server Error. Should that be deleted too? Thank you. CareerDoofus (talk) 14:40, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Vitrua Fighter 5

The Vitrua Fighter 5 page has been getting somewhat vandalized for a while now[21], some user keeps stating that it's the "final" game, I don't know why this is so important to this person, but that type of statement should be left for the developer or the producer to state, since they of course own the game and they keep making updates to the latest game and those updates are office, they're not fan made. Maybe this is being a little drastic, but maybe the page should be locked for a time?--108.208.136.152 (talk) 05:10, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

The updates Virtua Fighter 5 has been getting is not a strong reason not to call it last. It is possible to add more stuff to the most recent chapter of a series without ever adding a new chapter. In Virtua Fighter 5's case, the game is approaching 19 years old and the developers have no plans for a sixth game. With this, Virtua Fighter 5 pretty much fits the definition of final. 2603:8000:E800:5F4E:3CC7:3332:4049:F94D (talk) 14:42, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
Yes, but Wikipedia policy is that disputed article content must not be included without a citation to a reliable source supporting it. The fact that someone who has chosen to edit Wikipedia thinks that something "must" be true, or that something "pretty much fits the definition" of something falls under Wikipedia's concept of original research, and is not acceptable as justification for article content. You can try to get the policies on the need for citations to sources and on original research changed if you like, but as long as they are Wikipedia policies, you need to comply with them. For years you have been dedicated to trying to force acceptance of this one word into an article, in the face of clear consensus against doing so, as evidenced by the number of editors who have reverted. It really looks obsessive. Anyone who edits Wikipedia is bound sooner or later to encounter situations where consensus is clearly against them; in that situation it's necessary to accept consensus, no matter how strongly one personally thinks that the consensus is wrong. I have had to do that many times, and when it happens I leave it and move on to other things, rather than spending years stubbornly trying to impose my preferences. JBW (talk) 15:14, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

PoTC "-agonists" again

One of the IPs returned.   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 17:14, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

T7h3d8l22

Hi, I was just about to open an SPI with Nova444Scotia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) as the master, and Jezebel'sBornholm (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and T7h3d8l22 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) as socks, and I see you've already blocked T7h3d8l22. Grounds - similar/identical edits, all SPA's. Shall I go ahead? Did you have a master in mind when you blocked T7h3d8l22? Thanks, DuncanHill (talk) 18:06, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

@DuncanHill: When I blocked T7h3d8l22, I saw Jezebel'sBornholm as the master, as at that time I hadn't noticed Nova444Scotia. However, now that you have drawn Nova444Scotia to my attention, I've checked all three accounts, and even on the basis of the small amount of editing that they have done it's obvious that they are the same person, so I have blocked all of them, and semiprotected the article for 2 months. I don't see any point in an SPI, because there is no case for a CheckUser, and there's nothing else that could be done at SPI that I haven't done. I hope that will be the end of the matter, but unfortunately there's one fact which makes me think it may not be. Two of the three accounts have made a rapid string of trivial edits to their user talk pages, which, as you may know, is usually intended as a way of getting autoconfirmed; if so, they may well come back with another sockpuppet and do that to evade the protection of the article. Please feel welcome to contact me again if you see any more of this. JBW (talk) 21:22, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
Thanks, I thought as you were already onto them I would wait to see what you said before going to SPI. I strongly suspect (from the behaviour, including as you say gaming autoconfirmed) that Nova444Scotia won't have been the first incarnation, but I can't think who it would be. They only came to my notice this time because I keep an eye on certain kinds of referencing errors. Thanks again for the blocks, and of course I'll let you know if I see the same thing again. All the best, DuncanHill (talk) 21:29, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Need some advice

I was checking my watchlist when I noticed a revert made by Special:Contributions/浮蟻酒 to Human Acts. This is the diff, and the edit summary states "User of previous edit has repeated pattern of erroneously inserting their own work into prominent pages to advance self interest." After an initial moment of confusion, I realised they were talking about Special:Contributions/Gary_the_Gary, who does indeed follow a very obvious pattern of adding Korea Times articles written by "scholar and cultural critic David Tizzard". I suspect Gary has a WP:COI. How do I go about dealing with this?

I've read up on the COI policy and I'm a decent human being, so I know I can't just go pull an "OBJECTION!" on them and point fingers/force a confession of identity. How exactly should I address the situation on the user's talk page? I'm currently considering using {{uw-coi}} with the following comment: "Your only contributions to Wikipedia have been to add sources from the Korea Times, and only those authored by "scholar and cultural critic David Tizzard". This is why I suspect you have a Conflict of Interest. Wikipedia is not a place for advertising."

How could I address this situation better? Sirocco745 (talk) 04:21, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

@Sirocco745: OK, here are some of my thoughts on this.
Firstly, I don't think there's any doubt about this: there is only one possible explanation of the fact that 100% of the editing from this account is adding David Tizzard's opinions, with references to his work. Obviously he is here to use Wikipedia to publicise his own work and opinions.
I agree with you that just throwing an aggressive accusation at the editor would not be a good approach, though unfortunately there are many Wikipedia editors who would do it that way, even ones who think they too are "decent human being[s]".
What you have suggested, with a {{uw-coi}} and then a note explaining the reasons for suspicion, would be a perfectly acceptable way of dealing with this. However, the generic uw-coi notice is not a perfect fit for every situation, so you may prefer to write your own message instead, geared more to this particular case. If I were to do that, I would write it more like a personal message, rather than a formal notice with bold-text bullet points. Also, if I did write a custom message, I would start with something along the lines of "Hello, Gary the Gary. I notice that all your contributions have been ... which made me think..." and then follow it with the more formal stuff about the conflict of interest guideline and so on, rather than the other way round. I think that approach comes across as more friendly, and is less likely to antagonise editors. However, obviously that takes extra time and trouble, and it's up to you whether to put in that time and trouble or just use the ready made message. (Depressingly often I see editors posting templated messages which are, in my opinion, totally inapropriate for the particular situation, because it doesn't occur to them to do anything else, but I don't feel that way about this one.)
One detail of what you have suggested which I would change is "Wikipedia is not a place for advertising". Many people editing to promote themselves/their work/their organisation/etc/etc don't see the word "advertising" as applying to what they are doing, because the think of "advertising" as referring only to promotion for commercial gain by a for-profit business. Something like "Wikipedia is not a place for publicising one's opinions or one's work" is likely to be better. Sometimes I write something "Wikipedia is not a place for publicising or promoting anything, including oneself or one's work", but that's probably overkill in this case, especially if you do use uw-coi, which already says "editing for the purpose of advertising, publicizing, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted".
You may also wish to consider the question of whether to remove the self-serving material the editor has posted into articles, but at present I don't wish to get involved in that.
Please let me know if you have any more questions to ask or comments to make. JBW (talk) 10:18, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
Alrighty, thanks for the feedback! Sorry I wasn't able to respond earlier than this, I've just finished the first two of my seven HSC exams and am revising for the next three. I've got time for this though, it would be unbefitting of me to go "hey, there's some spilt coffee on the floor" and leave it for others to work out what to do with it. I was thinking that just leaving a templated message on their talk page wouldn't be sufficient, so thanks for confirming that and giving some advice on how you'd structure your response. I'm still getting used to the way things are done on Wikipedia, it's this weird balance between "writing an email on behalf of your boss" formal and "chatting with strangers on public transport" informal that somehow works.
This is what I have so far:
"Hello Gary the Gary! I've recently noticed that almost all of your contributions add content sourced from the same publication and author. While individually these edits wouldn't violate Wikipedia's editing policy, the cumulative sum of these parts has led me to believe you have an apparent conflict of interest."
"To summarize what this means for you as an editor and how it can affect you, a conflict of interest on Wikipedia means that you have a personal connection to the subject of your edit. This can involve editing content that addresses yourself, your business, your country, etc. The reason why this is frowned upon heavily here is because Wikipedia's primary objective is to present the facts as neutrally as possible, and bias influences the reason why you make edits in the manner you do."
"Internal preferences and prejudices are an unavoidable but manageable part of life for everyone. However, personal connection often manifests as advertising, promoting a certain view of the subject, or simply using the platform to increase your visibility. In your situation, there is reasonable evidence to assume you have a conflict of interest in relation to the Korea Times and the "scholar and cultural critic David Tizzard". By only using articles from the publication and author in question, it is a logical conclusion that you have done so because of whatever benefit is gained from increasing the visibility of the subject and their views."
I'm unsure how to conclude the message and what I should ask Gary2 to do. The "call to action", if you will. Could you give me some feedback on this when you have the time and suggest how I can improve this? Sirocco745 (talk) 05:05, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Could need some help...

I have enough patience trying to deal with this IP: 213.159.77.223

He added information that gets reverted by Binksternet and Waxworker for unsourced, and refusing to discuss about it. (Alan Oppenheimer)

I tried helping him, as I believed he was editing in good faith, but he called me a liar, causing him emotional distress...(that hurts me).

I don't know much about "just because a user adds in a missing credit doesn’t mean it has to be removed completely. Besides, none of the other acting credits have sources next to them, why this one!? Users can add missing credits anytime they want." thing, but I think I have advised him enough.

Now I am here humbly asking you to see if you can jump in and tried helping him... If he cannot be saved then just block him, though I really hope he can just calm down and have a discussion about the information that he added 🔥YesI'mOnFire🔥(ContainThisEmber?) 16:29, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

@YesI'mOnFire: As it happens, I was actually checking the editing of that IP address when you posted that message. As you have no doubt seen, the address has been blocked for a while. I wonder whether this is a long-term disruptive editor returning; I hope not. I noticed sone edits on the article Alan Oppenheimer from other related IP addresses, clearly the same person, so I have partially blocked an IP range from that article for a while. JBW (talk) 16:52, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

GustavaKomurov

So, User talk:GustavaKomurov. Let's start off by me saying I very strongly disagree that this block was "blatant abuse". It looks like a perfectly reasonable block. However, the technical data does indeed support GustavaKomurov that she (I believe "Gustava" is a feminine name) is Red X Unrelated to Ljfrench. Her edit was certainly inappropriate, but primarily because it was blatantly unreliable. I don't have high hopes here, but I do think we are obligated to lift the block. The block was for abusing multiple accounts and I can't find evidence that this has happened. Yes, there's the undisclosed older account, but I don't think that factored in to your block. There's the behaviour after the block, but people sometimes get... aggressively indignant... after a block. Please be aware, I'm coming down with something and my brain isn't fully functional today. What are your thoughts? --Yamla (talk) 20:45, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

@Yamla: Yes, I think you are right, on all points, so I have removed the block on GustavaKomurov, and restored talk page access for Ljfrench, inviting him to withdraw the legal threat and be unblocked. Thanks for prompting me to think again, and especially thanks for pointing out that people can get "aggressively indignant" when blocked; it's perfectly reasonable for them to do so if the block is a mistake, and I don't think I made enough allowance for that. JBW (talk) 21:36, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
Thanks! Have a great day. --Yamla (talk) 22:58, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Draft:Maati Se Bandhi Dor

Hi I'm creating wikipedia articles of star plus shows so can you please restore this draft which would be really helpful for creating the article Aleyammarockz (talk) 05:22, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

No. The page was created by a person who was evading a block. Restoring such pages conveys the message that they can get away with block-evasion, thus encouraging them to more block-evasion. JBW (talk) 09:22, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
Okay no issues thanks anyways Aleyammarockz (talk) 10:53, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

FYI - OP decided to go against the advice. --CNMall41 (talk) 03:34, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

@CNMall41: Well, not really, because it was a new article rather than a resurrection of the old one, but it's still worth watching. JBW (talk) 10:40, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

This redirect

Trying to understand what happened at Sayyid Sulaiman Hussaini. An article was created at this title on 24 August. This was a machine-generated misspelling, and I moved it to the correct spelling Syed Sulaiman Husaini the following day and tagged the redirect for deletion as an implausible typo (since it was turning up zero web search results). I missed, though, that a link to the misspelled title had recently been created by the same author at Socialist Workers Thailand. I guess what happened was that you deleted the redirect, then upon seeing the matching Wikipedia search result, re-created it to the party article, forgetting that it was a typo for the person? Anyway, things should be fixed now. (Since the spelling is generated by a machine translation, I guess there's the possibility of it popping up again elsewhere, so it's likely enough for the redirect to be kept after all.) --Paul_012 (talk) 14:38, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

@Paul 012: I don't remember this at all, but yes, I did delete the original redirect in response to your deletion tag. What you suggest is probably the correct explanation, though I've no idea how or why I came to notice that the name was in the Socialist Workers article; it's not the kind of thing I'm likely to be looking for. Anyway, I don't really have any strong feeling either way as to whether the redirect should be kept or not. I will happily delete it again if you ask me to, but from what you said above you probably won't. JBW (talk) 15:38, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Email

It is long-winded, but I just sent the hook, line, and sinker via email. It also opens another rabbit hole likely. Excuse the formatting and grammar as I put it together from copying and pasting. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:16, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Invitation to participate in a research

Hello,

The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Wikipedia, and what affects administrator retention. We will use this research to improve experiences for Wikipedians, and address common problems and needs. We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this anonymous survey.

You do not have to be an Administrator to participate.

The survey should take around 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement .

Please find our contact on the project Meta page if you have any questions or concerns.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 19:22, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Invitation to participate in a research

Hello,

The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Wikipedia, and what affects administrator retention. We will use this research to improve experiences for Wikipedians, and address common problems and needs. We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this anonymous survey.

You do not have to be an Administrator to participate.

The survey should take around 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement .

Please find our contact on the project Meta page if you have any questions or concerns.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 19:28, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for trying to explain to J2009j all things they clearly do not understand about Wikipedia and their block. I was going to do similar because I didn't think it was fair to leave it to the person reviewing their unblock request which will undoubtedly be declined but you got to it first. Unfortunately, it's unlikely to do much good. Will see. S0091 (talk) 16:08, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

@S0091: Yes, you are right. I always find it very difficult to know how to handle this kind of situation. It appears to be someone who really honestly doesn't understand, rather than someone willfully refusing to cooperate. That being so, just dismissing their requests for help is unfriendly and unhelpful, but putting work into trying to help them is likely to be unhelpful too, since they probably still won't understand. If one does try to help by explaining things, a short summary of the main points is unlikely to be more successful than previous messages which have failed to convey the essential points, but a longer and more detailed account is likely to just seem like an intimidating wall of text, and the important points may get lost amongst it all. All things considered, something of a lose-lose situation. 😕 However, I like to at least try to give the editor a chance, even if more in hope than in expectation. JBW (talk) 17:59, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
It's one thing to truly not understand (which is understandable...Wikipedia is complex) but an entirely different situation when they both don't understand and make baseless accusations against editors. That's why I did not respond yesterday and had a beer instead. :) Generally I have found it best to ignore accusations and address the other, which you expertly handled, but they said I keep emailing them which if it were true could be harassment so felt I did need to at least address that. Either way, I am glad you are the admin with eyes on it because not everyone has the patience you do or the ability to maintain hope, which I appreciate and respect. S0091 (talk) 18:38, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
@S0091: Thanks for those comments. It's good to know that at least sometimes my efforts are appreciated. And yes, what I said above about honestly not understanding was only part of the problem. There are also the accusations, which you mentioned. And there are plainly irrational elements too, just saying things which don't make any sense. I really couldn't quarrel with any administrator who decided to remove talk page access, because this is going nowhere, and looks set to continue to go nowhere. However, my approach is to concentrate on the "I'm trying to help you understand" side of it, in part, as I indicated above, in the genuine hope that, against expectations, I can help, but also in order that if and when I decide enough is enough and the plug has to be pulled, I don't have to feel any doubts about doing so. If they really were given every chance and didn't take it, well, that's an end to it. JBW (talk) 20:05, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
JBW, please do not ever doubt you are appreciated. I personally have learned by your example and I am sure others have as well. I call it 'quiet influence' because one may not know the impact they have. For example, I did not take advantage of the opportunity to thank DGG or tap into his knowledge which is a regret of mine. While he and I never interacted directly, he did influences how I think about Wikipedia and I think the same about you but in a different way.
J has responded and I've given it one more go with some underlining. Maybe that will help? If not, I am done. S0091 (talk) 20:46, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
@S0091: Well, rightly or wrongly, I have decided that it's time for a final warning, as you will see from their talk page. I think many administrators would have already removed talk page access, without giving yet another warning.
It's interesting to read what you say about DGG. I had a good deal of respect for him, even though in many, probably most, of the interactions between us, we disagreed. In my early days of being active on Wikipedia, he and I were both very active at AfD. Time and again I found I was in favour of deleting an article, and he was for keeping it. Then my interests moved elsewhere, and I rarely took part at AfD, so I didn't encounter DGG very often, but when I did, I found that as time went by, more and more often I was in favour of keeping, and he was in favour of deleting. He once said (perhaps on his user page, perhaps in a discussion somewhere, I don't remember) that over the years he had moved from being inclusionist towards being more deletionist; meanwhile I had moved the other way. I remember being surprised that he supported me at RfA, thinking that he would oppose because of our different take on deletions, but he was able to accept that there is room for people with different views to work together. JBW (talk) 21:13, 27 October 2024 (UTC)


Email

Thanks for your email, just saw now. I'm having a little sabbatical (temporary, one hopes), so happy for you to adjust the block to facilitate a talk page unblock based on developments. Cheers, Daniel (talk) 21:59, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

G3

Good afternoon. Admittedly I was borderline on the tagging of Guesra and others, but I do believe that it meets the G3 criteria. I hoped the RfD that was referred to in the move log, and edit summaries were able to indicate the fact that these were "redirects left behind from page move vandalism", one of the WP:G3 criteria, but wanted to follow up here.

In the past, there was an article for Gesura (created in 2006) that has been long since become a redirect (in 2012). Currently Gesura is a misleading redirect, and this was the case for several years. In 2023, User:Coolbro247 (now blocked for WP:NOTHERE) took many historied redirects, and indiscriminately moved these to odd titles, all of which were also unmentioned at the target. As of March 2024, there was no opposition to repairing these broken moves Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 March 1#Dada (Ultra_monster) and etc., and the no quorum consensus is that the duplicated redirects are problematic. The redirects have now been moved to the original locations, and the cleanup redirects from page-move disruption should be deleted. Chandlar and Greensmons were speedily deleted for this very reason, in User:Utopes/CSD log. These titles may very well be recreated, but the only history they contain is vandalism. Thank you for your consideration. Utopes (talk / cont) 23:36, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

As for the recent edit summaries about "obviousness", the history clearly indicates the redirects were moved by a blocked editor and reverted, and the rationale for blocking for NOTHERE. These have already been to RfD once which was unopposed to this cleanup, which is where the "context" bit came in, as these have been an identified problem for a while. Utopes (talk / cont) 23:39, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
Also see: User talk:Coolbro247#August 2023; this has been a pending fix, with these page moves being performed near the exact same time. Nearly all of the disruption from this user had been reverted, except for some obscure edits (such as moving redirects with 2009 histories to various titles) that seems to have snuck under the radar around the time of the block. I don't see a need to reopen a second RfD, especially so after these sat there for a month in February-March 2024 with no disapproval towards fixing this mess. Utopes (talk / cont) 23:46, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
@Utopes: Thanks for explaining. I'll try to have a look at it soon, but I'm afraid I don't have time now. JBW (talk) 00:18, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Minor disputed edit

Hi JBW. I recently made a minor edit to Gaussian primes in which I deleted the following sentence. "In other words, a Gaussian integer is a Gaussian prime if and only if either its norm is a prime number, or it is the product of a unit (±1, ±i) and a prime number of the form 4n + 3. "

I deleted it because it is incorrect. The first condition should read that the norm is the *square root* of a prime number. The second condition is ok, but I thought it was unclear whether it was still referring to the norm or referring to the Gaussian integer itself. Since these two conditions are just restating the two dot points directly above, I figured it was best to just delete the sentence rather than reword it.

But you've reverted my change. Why? I thought I was doing something a little bit helpful; and I feel confused and discouraged that it was immediately reverted. If I'm doing something wrong, I'd like to know. 103.23.174.114 (talk) 02:58, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

The condition that the norm is a prime number is correct. You are probably thinking not of the norm, but of the absolute value, which is the square root of the norm. I agree with you about the second condition being unclear, so I will rephrase it. Thanks for pointing that out. JBW (talk) 09:53, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
Ok. Thanks @JBW. I see now. You're right that I was thinking of the absolute value. Apparently there is some ambiguity about what specifically is meant by the norm of a complex number. Sometimes it refers to the absolute value, and sometimes to the square of the absolute value. I hadn't realised that (or perhaps I'd forgotten). Incidentally, the wikipedia article about norms suggests it is the absolute value. But I've now seen a bunch of other sources that agree with what you said. Apparently it is a bit context dependent. 103.23.174.114 (talk) 21:53, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
Yes. I have thought for a very long time that the different ways the word "norm" is used in different mathematical contexts is extremely unhelpful. JBW (talk) 23:22, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
The article you linked to is Norm (mathematics). I think that is an unhelpful title, because that is just one meaning of "norm" in mathematics, and there are others. The one which is relevant here is to be found at Field norm. JBW (talk) 23:39, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – November 2024

News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2024).

Administrator changes

readded
removed

CheckUser changes

removed Maxim

Oversighter changes

removed Maxim

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • Mass deletions done with the Nuke tool now have the 'Nuke' tag. This change will make reviewing and analyzing deletions performed with the tool easier. T366068

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:21, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

This can't be a coincidence...

User Travekid820 and user Travekid8205555555 were both created today but only the latter has edited so far.   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 18:28, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

@Skywatcher68: As soon as I saw that somebody had posted "This can't be a coincidence..." on this page, without seeing the username, I thought of you. Somehow that wording just seemed to be your style. Agreed, it can't be a coincidence. I've posted a vandalism warning to the account that has edited. (You are evidently a nicer and friendlier person than I am, because in your edit summary you called it a test edit, not vandalism.) I think it's almost always worth posting a warning, both because it may deter them from continuing and because it's easier to take admin action against an editor who has continued after being warned than one who has never been warned. Well, actually it isn't easier to take action, as either way it's the same block button to push, but it's easier to make the block stick, and to avoid criticism. Other than that, it's worth keeping an eye on both accounts, and if one turns out to be problematic consider taking action against both. You can give a warning on use of multiple accounts if you like, but personally I wouldn't, at least as long as only one account has edited. JBW (talk) 19:30, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Being in customer service, I'm inclined to assume good faith. I would have gone direct to SPI if both had made problematic edits.   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 20:15, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
@Skywatcher68: I don't know what kind of customer service you work in, but when, a very long time ago, I fairly briefly worked in a customer service job, fairly frequently at the end of what seemed like a very bad day at work I would stop and think, and realise that, although it felt as though I'd been having awkward and troublesome customers all day, in fact I had had about three awkward customers and about 200 perfectly good ones. (Also, that was on a bad day; overall statistics would be far better.) It's very easy to not notice the absence of problems when there aren't any, but of course you notice when there are problems. Yes, "AGF" was a good policy in that job, and well over 99% of the time it was justified, but it was easy to forget that at times. The same can happen with some aspects of work on Wikipedia: I occasionally have to remind myself to AGF. Unfortunately, there are too many editors who don't remind themselves. JBW (talk) 21:39, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Anna Larsdotter

For some reason Anna has 2 different types of parents that could be hers. The first one are Laurentius Mattiae (1550-1612) and an Unnamed Spouse how ever I doubt this because the last names don’t match and the other is Erik XIV and Anna Larsdotter (1530-1601). Both list her spouse as Benedictus Nicolai Cornukindius (1555-1611) but Mattiae’s lists her birth as 1570 but Larsdotters lists it as 1565. So it is hard to list a accurate citation.

Mattiae: https://ancestors.familysearch.org/en/L4TK-MWD/margareta-larsdotter-1570-1652

Anna Larsdotter: https://www.geni.com/people/Anna-Larsdotter/6000000015873546707

I will try to find any other sources. MaxtheBruh47 (talk) 21:02, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

@MaxtheBruh47: You have hit a fairly common, and frustrating, problem with trying to establish relationships among historical people. Really prominent and significant people are usually (though not always) easy enough, but for others it can be difficult. The fact that the two sources you mention contradict one another is an illustration of the fact that they are both highly unreliable, which, unfortunately, is true of close to all of these websites which claim to provide information about ancestry, genealogy, etc. You really need reliable published scholarly sources, but finding ones which are available online is likely to be difficult, if it is possible at all. I will have a brief look for information about Anna Larsdotter, but more in hope than in expectation of finding anything useful. JBW (talk) 21:19, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
@MaxtheBruh47: Well, the results of my search were even worse than I expected: Loads of genealogy and ancestry sites, which sometimes contradict one another, but nothing that came even near to being a reliable source. Good luck if you choose to put more work into trying to sort this out, but I'm afraid that it looks to me as though doing so may turn out to be just a waste of your time. JBW (talk) 21:45, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
Ok MaxtheBruh47 (talk) 22:21, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Old account

Hi. Left a reply on my user page. Anyways, can you delete the userpage of my old account, "User: Doctor Papa Jones". I tried editing it myself to add the "Db-userreq", but coudn't. Thanks in advance. DocPapaJones (talk) 23:44, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

UTRS appeal #96597

Help me Obi Wan Kenobi. You are my only hope Seriously though. Can you make any sense of this? Is there any way you could recommend restoring TPA and carrying to WP:AN. Blocked in 2013. Too many UTRS tickets to count. SMDH. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:53, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Reminder to participate in Wikipedia research

Hello,

I recently invited you to take a survey about administration on Wikipedia. If you haven’t yet had a chance, there is still time to participate– we’d truly appreciate your feedback. The survey is anonymous and should take about 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement.

Take the survey here.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 00:18, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JBW/Archive_84&oldid=1259144151"